Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Labour Statistics

Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the current level of unemployment.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr.Michael Howard): Unemployment in the United Kingdom, measured on the consistent seasonally adjusted series, was 2,175,000 in April 1991. It remains the case that there are now 1·3 million more jobs in Britain than in 1979 and over 3 million more jobs than in 1983. Job prospects will again improve following the resumption of economic growth.

Mr. Jones: The Minister's statement will not offer any hope to the quarter more people in my constituency who have become unemployed since last year. Does he agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that such levels of unemployment are a price well worth paying for the faint or, should I say, vague signs of recovery that only his right hon. Friend discerns in the economy?

Mr. Howard: The point made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was that it is essential to overcome inflation if we are to restore competitiveness to our economy and create the conditions in which jobs can once again grow. If the hon. Gentleman is as concerned about unemployment as he claims to be, will he talk to his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench and get them to abandon their job destruction package, which will destroy so many jobs in Britain?

Mr. Charles Wardle: Would not the greatest threat to jobs be to let inflation go unchecked or to impose a national minimum wage or, worse still, to do both'? Is not that precisely what would result from the wild promises made repeatedly by the Opposition?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Opposition cling to that absurd policy which is denounced on both sides of the House and which would undoubtedly destroy jobs on a devastating scale; yet they claim to be concerned about the fate of the unemployed.

Mr. Wallace: With an estimated 5,500 compulsory or voluntary liquidations in the first quarter of this year in England and Wales, can the Secretary of State give us some idea how many jobs have been lost in small businesses this year? As banks are allegedly charging

interest rates well above the base rate, what advice does the Minister with responsibility for small businesses give to the banks?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that one would need to take net figures for job creation if one were considering small businesses separately. The latest figures that we have show that during last year over 800 more businesses a week were starting up than were going out of business. It is typical of Opposition Members that they are keen to talk about businesses closing down, but they consistently fail to recognise the new businesses that are starting up and being created every day in Britain.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the minimum wages policy which exists, perhaps in name only, throughout the European Community and America is allowed to exist only because the levels of wages under it are so low and that the entry of the East Germans, whose attempt to raise wages artificially has created enormous unemployment, shows that if the Opposition were to try to impose their policy it would undoubtedly create enormous unemployment and dislocation in the labour market?

Mr. Howard: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I take this opportunity of correcting a fabrication that is being put about by the Opposition. It certainly is not the case that a statutory minimum wage exists within the EC. That is far from the truth. A statutory minimum wage exists in only four countries in the Community. In those countries, the points made by my hon. Friend are absolutely right: the minimum wage is honoured more in the breach than in the observance. If Labour Members are interested in reducing unemployment, they would do well to recognise that in socialist France and Spain, which have a statutory minimum wage policy, unemployment is far higher than in this country.

Mr. Blair: Will the Secretary of State confirm that this country has not only the fastest rising unemployment of any nation in Europe and in the western world, but falling output and investment and it is also cutting training for the unemployed? When will that unique combination of economic failure and political indifference end? When will the Government start to restore the training budget for the unemployed by introducing the work experience programme that they need and taking responsibility for the unemployment that they are creating?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman knows that only a short time ago I announced an increase of £120 million in resources for employment training. It is beyond dispute—the hon. Gentleman consistently fails to face up to this—that had Labour been in office over the past few years, unemployment would be much higher than it is today. Were Labour to gain office again in the future, unemployment would be very much higher than it is today. That is why the British people will never make the mistake of electing Labour to government.

Mr. David Martin: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that employment in Portsmouth is much better than it was at the time of the last general election and that the policies of private enterprise are the best to carry forward employment prospects? Will my right hon. and learned Friend keep emphasising that Labour's job-destroying


policies are the last thing that the people of Portsmouth want and that every previous Labour Government have left office with higher unemployment than they inherited?

Mr. Howard: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It is true that every Labour Government has left behind higher unemployment than when they took office. My hon. Friend's comments about the fall in unemployment in Portsmouth since the last general election apply across the whole country.[Interruption.]

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us move into calmer waters.

Rotherham TEC

Mr. Hardy: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were employed in training agencies and how many were engaged in full-time courses on 1 February in the area served by Rotherham training and enterprise councils; how many people are now so employed; and what is the change in the number of full-time training places since February.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Jackson): On 1 February 1991, there were 2,977 people in training in the area served by Rotherham training and enterprise council. On 30 April 1991, there were 2,392 people in training. The number of people employed by training providers is a matter for the providers themselves.

Mr. Hardy: A moment, ago the Secretary of State used the word "devastating". Does the Minister accept that areas that have been economically devastated during the past decade, such as South Yorkshire, should benefit from improved and more meaningful training, rather than suffer the cuts and curbs that have been inflicted on them in recent months? Does the Minister accept that we must prepare for the day when we have an intelligent Government who will encourage and revive industrial investment?

Mr. Jackson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must do everything that we can to help unemployed people. That may involve training, but also other measures, such as helping them to find work through building their confidence and motivation, and so on. The Government are providing a wide range of opportunities, which are leading to 100,000 people being placed in work every month.

Training Credits

Mr. Hind: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the measures that he has taken to implement his proposals for training credits for 16 to 19-year-olds.

Mr. Howard: The first 11 pilot schemes started in April and are offering training credits to around 45,000 young people—about 10 per cent. of the 16 and 17-year-olds leaving full-time education this year. The White Paper presented to the House on 20 May set out our aim that within the lifetime of the next Parliament, every 16 and 17-year-old leaving full-time education will have the offer

of a place on a training scheme. I shall shortly be issuing a prospectus inviting bids from TECs to run a second round of schemes to operate from April 1993.

Mr. Hind: When my right hon. and learned Friend visits west Lancashire and Skelmersdale on Friday, will he point out to the employers whom he will meet that unemployment in west Lancashire is 37୰5 per cent. lower than it was at the last general election? Will he point out also the advantages of his training credit scheme, the flexibility that it offers 16 and 17-year-olds, and the overall improvement in skills that it will offer to the work force in my constituency and in the north-west of England?

Mr. Howard: I look forward greatly to visiting my hon. Friend's constituency on Friday. I shall certainly take the opportunity of drawing the attention of employers there to everything that he said—although I expect them to know all about it already, as they are probably far too sensible to be taken in by the constant misrepresentations of the Labour party.

Mr. Madden: Will the Secretary of State visit Bradford, which suffers from soaring unemployment and has been known for years as "low-pay city"? Will he take my advice and refrain from lecturing the unemployed about the inequities of the minimum wage? What they would like is an explanation of why the right hon. and learned Gentleman has cut the city's training budget by £2 million, why training workshops stand idle and why training providers have been made redundant. That is what the unemployed want to hear; they do not want third-rate lectures about the minimum wage.

Mr. Howard: I have paid many enjoyable visits to Bradford in the past and look forward to visiting it again soon. Bradford has a particularly effective training and enterprise council, which is addressing its training needs in a particularly effective way. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will want to associate himself fully with its excellent work.

Mrs. Currie: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this year nearly 60 per cent. of 16-year-olds are staying on at school or going to college, which is what they should be doing if we are to catch up with our international competitors? For the minority of youngsters who still leave school at the earliest possible opportunity, my right hon. and learned Friend's training credits proposals are flexible and sensible and will enable those young people to make proper choices about the training that they take up.

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support. I entirely agree with her comments.
The training credits scheme—which is a world first for this country—epitomises the difference between the Government and the Labour party. We believe in giving young people opportunities and placing buying power in their hands; Labour believes in the dead hand of compulsion and that is the only policy that it has to offer.

Disabled People

Mr. Ashley: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest steps that he has taken to improve the employment prospects of disabled people.

Mr. Jackson: My Department has continued to develop the wide range of mainstream and specialist services that


can help people with disabilities to get and keep employment. From this April, we have given unemployed people with disabilities priority access to four of our main employment and training programmes. In April, we also announced changes to improve the effectiveness of our specialist disability services and our local and national advisory bodies.

Mr. Ashley: Notwithstanding those steps, is the Minister aware that disabled people suffer from serious discrimination in the jobs market, although they are entitled to the same protection under the law as has been enjoyed by ethnic minorities and women for the past 15 years? The United States has introduced wide-ranging and effective anti-discrimination legislation; when will we follow suit?

Mr. Jackson: We have attempted to deal with that problem through, for example, the quota system, which has been in place for some 40 years but has not proved particularly effective.
The Department does not believe that the introduction of the legislation described by the right hon. Gentleman would be effective in combating discrimination, but we are doing a great deal to help people with disabilities. In 1989–90, the most recent year for which we have all the figures, about £400 million was spent to assist people with disabilities. That is a considerable increase on the spending of past years.

Mr. Hannam: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the increased opportunities that are being given to training and enterprise councils for training the disabled. Is he aware that the main colleges that train people with disabilities for industry—colleges such as St. Loyes in Exeter—rely increasingly on TECs to provide the necessary input? Will he give his full support to the pilot scheme that has enabled some regional TECs to come together to ensure that that input is provided?

Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is very important for TECs and colleges—and, Indeed, others representing the interests of disabled people—to work closely together. It is interesting that 11 per cent. of the total spend on employment training carried out by the TECs goes to people with disabilities.

Mr. Irvine: Can my hon. Friend confirm that nowadays every disabled 16 and 17-year-old youngster has an opportunity to take up a training place? Can he also confirm that such opportunities were not available to disabled youngsters when Labour was last in power?

Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Disabled young people in the age group to which he referred benefit from the youth training guarantee, which was not available when the Labour party was in office. Furthermore, youth training was not available then, either. Only 6,000 young people had training places in 1979, compared with hundreds of thousands today.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Ron Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people under the age of 25 years are currently unemployed; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): In April 1991 there were

662,078 unemployed claimants under 25. That compares with 1,025,939 in April 1987 and 1,286,182 in January 1985. Latest comparable figures from the European Commission show that United Kingdom unemployment among the under-25s, at 12·3 per cent., is lower than the European Community average of 16·4 per cent.

Mr. Brown: Is not it true these days that many young people leave school with no job, no hope and no future? The reasons are obvious. In my constituency, for example, Ferranti is closing Bellesk house, Ranks Hovis McDougall is closing the Caledonia mills, and SAI, under Government pressure, is closing its fertiliser plant. That is a disgrace. Would not it be more appropriate if the Government got on their bike and allowed a socialist Government to take over? That is what is being demanded from outside.

Mr. Forth: I shall leave the hon. Gentleman to decide whether a socialist Government is on offer to the country. He may wish to discuss that with his hon. Friends.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned his constituency; he would want me to remind the House that when he was last elected, in 1987, 6,635 people were out of work there. He will rejoice with me that today only 4,300 people are out of work in his constituency. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in celebrating that fact and that instead of coming to the House and running his constituency down he will come here with tales of how successful the employers in his constituency can be and say that he will help them to continue that success.

Sir Robert McCrindle: As white-collar unemployment. not least among the under-25s, appears to be rising, arguably faster than unemployment in other sectors of the economy, will my hon. Friend reconsider some of the training programmes and initiatives—especially, perhaps, some of the advertising by his Department to aid the jobless? There are clear signs that the advertisements seem rather more clearly directed at those seeking jobs in manufacturing industry, whereas the fastest rise in unemployment is in evidence in the service sector, not least in London and the south-east.

Mr. Forth: I regret that my hon. Friend has got that impression. We have tried to take great care to ensure that advertising by the Department covers the full spread of activities. The answer to my hon. Friend's reasonable request is that the network of training and enterprise councils is almost complete throughout the land and that we are giving TECs the flexibility to identify local training needs in their communities and to tailor training programmes appropriately. Both the Secretary of State and the Department give that aspect great emphasis and my recent contact with TECs has given me enormous confidence that they can deliver a sensitively tailored local package of training for each area. I hope that the TEC in my hon. Friend's area is doing the same—I am sure that it is.

Mr. McLeish: Why do young people continue to bear the brunt of the Government's incompetence and mismanagement of the economy? Will the Minister tell the House why in the rest of Europe unemployment among the under-25s has been rising at 1 per cent. over the past year, whereas in Britain there has been a spectacular 32 per cent. increase? Will the party of mass unemployment tell us


now when it will take that issue seriously, or does it once again agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that unemployment was a price well worth paying?

Mr. Forth: Let us take as an agreed starting point the figure that I gave in my original answer, which was that unemployment among the under-25s in this country is 12·3 per cent. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that, so far from having 12·3 per cent., socialist Spain—a country with which he will no doubt feel an affinity—has 29·9 per cent. unemployment among the under-25s. In Italy, which was run by a coalition Government when I last looked, the figure is 29·4 per cent. In France, a country often cited by the Opposition—at least when it suits them—the figure is 18·7 per cent. Our record may not be perfect, but the record of the continental countries is a jolly sight worse.

Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend is far too young to remember what it was like when there was last a Labour Government, but can he remind us from his records what was the usual practice for the majority of 16 and 17-year-olds when the previous Labour Government were in power and what is now on offer for them?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am glad that he reminded me of what happened under the last Labour Government—although I shall have to take his word for it, for reasons that he gave. The Labour Government abandoned young people to the dole queue, whereas this Government have introduced positive and imaginative schemes to ensure that no 16, 17 and 18-year-old need be unemployed except from his own choice. That shows more clearly than anything the difference between this Government and the Opposition in terms of attitudes and policies.

Training Places

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training places are available under (a) training and enterprise councils, (b) other Government programmes and (c) local authority programmes; and how many were available under Government and local authority programmes in 1989 and 1990 in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Howard: The information is not available in the form requested. In March 1991, 547,000 people were in training provided through TECs and local enterprise companies. The corresponding figures for March 1990 and March 1989 were 554,000 and 553,000 respectively.

Mr. Griffiths: I am sorry that the Minister cannot give me the information in the form in which I requested it. Nevertheless, his reply shows that there has been a reduction in training places. Has there been a massive reduction in TEC-provided training places for the disabled? That has certainly happened with Mid Glamorgan TEC and I have the impression that the disabled have generally been forgotten by the TECs.

Mr. Howard: I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not the case. I suspect that he may be confusing training providers with those who benefit from training. It is true that there have been particular difficulties in Mid Glamorgan, arising from the fact that many voluntary providers of training places have failed to achieve

approved training organisation status, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the needs of the disabled are fully taken into account by the TECs.

Mr. Paice: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the most important questions to be taken into account in considering training places is the number of people available for them? Is not it true that we face a substantial decline in the number of young people of school-leaving age and just above, added to which there has been a welcome but substantial increase in the number of young people staying on at school and undertaking further education, and that that is a perfectly understandable reason why there should be less need to have so many training places available for people in that age group?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We maintain a guarantee of a youth training place to every young school leaver aged 16 or 17 who is unemployed and we shall continue to honour that guarantee.

Mr. Leighton: Can the Secretary of State tell us the name of a single chairman of a training and enterprise council or of a single member of a TEC board who supports the cuts that he made in his Department's training budget? At a time when trainers are being made redundant right across the country, why is he sabotaging the TEC movement?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the TEC movement is going from strength to strength and is far from being sabotaged. Members of TEC boards would take the hon. Gentleman's criticisms very ill indeed. He knows, as Chairman of the Employment Select Committee, that, as a result of surveys that we carried out, we carefully considered the provision needed. We have adjusted the balance of training places and other provision, and this year we are providing up to 100,000 extra opportunities for unemployed people in job clubs and under the job interview guarantee scheme.

Mr. Batiste: When evaluating the more than 500,000 training places that are available today, will my right hon. and learned Friend recall how many such training places were available in 1979 under the Labour Government?

Mr. Howard: I can give my hon. Friend the figures. When the Labour party left office in 1979, 6,000 young people were receiving training; the comparable figure today is 350,000

Disabled People

Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps are being taken by his Department to encourage training initiatives for people with disabilities.

Mr. Howard: Training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies in Scotland are required to set out in their business plans how they intend to provide training for people with special needs, including those with disabilities. These plans form the basis of their contract. From April this year, people with disabilities are being given higher priority than before by being included in the aim group for employment training.

Mr. Clarke: Will the Secretary of State meet the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, which will provide him with concrete evidence of how young disabled people are being denied their training rights? Will he inform the training and enterprise councils that they have a contractual responsibility to deal with these matters, and that they should meet it? Will he discourage his ministerial colleague from complaining about the quota system as Departments have an appalling record, and his own is no exception?

Mr. Howard: I will not answer the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question because the Government's position on the quota was explained fully a few moments ago by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. My hon. Friend or I would be happy to meet the organisation to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We are happy to discuss these matters with it, and I can confirm that training and enterprise councils are contractually bound to make available training places for people with special needs, including people with disabilities.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Government introduced the legislation that ensures that all 16 and 17-year-olds, including disabled youngsters, are entitled to training, and that that legislation did not exist under the Labour Government? It is humbug to pretend otherwise.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right. There was no guarantee for young people, disabled or otherwise, when the Labour party was in office. It is no use Opposition Members parroting from sedentary positions matters relating to unemployment at that time, because we know very well that Ministers in the previous Labour Government wanted to introduce schemes such as we have introduced but did not have the resources to do so because of the abject failure of their economic policy.

Labour Statistics

Miss Lestor: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the unemployment figures for Eccles for (a) April 1990 and (b) April 1991.

Mr. Jackson: On the unadjusted basis, there were 3,609 unemployed claimants in the Eccles parliamentary constituency in April 1991, compared with 2,919 in April 1990.

Miss Lestor: May I remind the Minister that every time the Government change the method by which they calculate unemployment and knock hundreds of people off the register, it does not alter the reality that the people who have been knocked off the register are still unemployed? Furthermore, will he recognise that we do not have a minimum wage in Eccles, in the travel-to-work area of Salford or in the north-west, but we have a growing number of unemployed people, particularly among those under 25? Does he think that that is more likely to be explained by a lack of investment and a lack of training than by anything else?

Mr. Jackson: As the hon. Lady referred to the minimum wage, she must say whether it would help to improve employment prospects in Eccles.

Equal Pay

Mr. Ashton: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many women now have equal pay with men.

Mr. Jackson: The information is not available. Between 1970 and 1990 the differential between men's and women's full-time average hourly earnings narrowed significantly. This demonstrates that the labour market, reinforced by equal pay legislation, is working to the advantage of women.

Mr. Ashton: Is the Minister aware that when Labour introduced equal pay legislation in 1974, every Tory said that it would cost I million women's jobs and that it would decimate the retail industry and catering? It did not. Is he aware that the minimum wage of £3·40 an hour proposed by Labour would not either? McDonald's would sell just as many hamburgers after the minimum wage is introduced as it does now. The only difference would be that McDonald's employees would receive a damned good pay rise, but there would be the same number of jobs.

Mr. Jackson: I am sure that the progress that has been made towards equal pay for men and women has occurred because of the operation of the labour market and of demographics rather than legislative intervention. Intervention in the form of a minimum wage as proposed by the hon. Gentleman would certainly reduce the availability of jobs, which would be especially damaging to the interests of women and of disabled workers.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Does the Minister recognise that women do not wish to be patronised by the Labour party and that the Labour party's commitment to women and to minimum wage levels would better be demonstrated if it gave women minimal opportunity in the trade union movement?

Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Does the Minister agree with the assessment of the Equal Opportunities Commission that our present equal pay laws are a paradise for lawyers, but hell for women? Will the Government continue with their present line of hypocrisy and incompetence when dealing with equal pay? Most of the gains were made in the early days of the equal pay legislation under the previous Labour Government. Do the Government intend to respond positively to the Equal Opportunities Commission's demand for tougher laws on equal pay and if so, will they do so soon?

Mr. Jackson: I have discussed these issues with the Equal Opportunities Commission. It is difficult to find a way around the problem of establishing in law what is equal value for equal pay and of applying it in particular cases. It requires extensive advice from experts, which draws out the proceedings. I must say that we have succeeded in improving the position of women workers. We have the second highest proportion of women at work in the European Community and there are more women working in Britain—about 12 million—than in any other country in the European Community. That suggests that we have been doing a good job for women.

Education and Training

Mr. Arbuthnot: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received on the White Paper "Education and Training for the 21st Century"; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Howard: The White Paper has had a very positive reception. Training and enterprise councils and local education authorities have welcomed our proposals and are keen to contribute to the delivery of education and the development of their responsibilities in this area.
My Department is making rapid progress in implementing those of the White Paper's proposals for which we are responsible. I shall be sending a prospectus to TECs next week inviting bids to run the 1993 training credit schemes. A prospectus inviting bids for new compacts will follow. Progress is also being made in taking forward partnerships between TECs and LEAs for supervising the careers service.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Is not it correct that training credits will give our young people choice and incentives in training rather than the incentive to stay on the dole offered by the Opposition? The Opposition's policies would reduce the number of jobs, reduce choice and reduce the incentives to train.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is clear about the difference between the parties on that subject. I wish that the same could be said for the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) who, when questioning me on the White Paper, said that he would see how the training credits progressed, although he knew perfectly well that training credits were entirely inconsistent with the policy of compulsion pursued by the Opposition.

Mr. Fatchett: Is not it clear that despite the very expensive public relations launch of the White Paper, it contained no figures on the cost of introducing the measures proposed? Does not that make it clear that the Government, who have already made cuts in training at a time of rising unemployment, have neither the political nor the economic will to ensure that this country secures the best educated and best trained work force in western Europe? The Government need to consider not their White Paper, but their record. If trainers do that, they will realise that they have no future to look forward to.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman could not be more wrong. When the White Paper was introduced, I gave the additional cost of the training credit proposal—of £14 million and £35 million—in the first two years of its operation. The hon. Gentleman simply does not know what he is talking about. I had hoped that he would rise to clarify the confusion that exists in the mind of his hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) on these matters.

Mr. Simon Coombs: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those who opposed the technical and vocational education initiative, who fought against youth training and who opposed the introduction of the youth training scheme are utterly discredited on any question of education and training? Will he give the Labour party one last chance to come into the 20th century and to recognise the contribution that all those schemes have made to training for young people?

Mr. Howard: I am not optimistic that the Labour party would take that opportunity. The Labour party has opposed tooth and nail every training initiative that the Government have introduced over the past 12 years. Labour has no credentials to talk about training.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Haynes: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the unemployment figures for 1979–80 and 1989–90.

Mr. Howard: On the consistent seasonally adjusted basis, United Kingdom unemployment averaged 1,072,500 in the financial year 1979–80 compared with 1,702,200 in 1989–90.

Mr. Haynes: Does not the Secretary of State feel ashamed of himself? Is he aware that a Secretary of State not far from him is on his way, according to the newspapers? The whole House will agree that it is time he went.

Mr. Howard: I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who has long experience of these matters and who has a particular contribution to make, will at least have a word with his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench and tell them how damaging their proposals for a minimum wage would be. The hon. Gentleman knows that Barbara Castle pointed out in 1969 how devastating such proposals would be. Why cannot he have a word with his hon. Friends and get them to see sense?

Training and Enterprise Councils

Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he is taking to increase the role of training and enterprise councils in strengthening the ties between employers and education.

Mr. Howard: Training and enterprise councils already have a major role in strengthening local ties between employers and education. The White Paper "Education and Training for the 21st Century" creates new opportunities to extend those ties through the extension of training credits, the expansion of compacts and involvement in the careers service, in partnership with local education authorities.

Mr. Brazier: Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in sending good wishes to the Canterbury Industrial Consultative Council whose representatives are having lunch today in the House of Commons and several of whose members are active with the new Kent training and enterprise council? Does he agree that the TECs provide the opportunity to bring training closer to the marketplace and to ensure that training in each county is exactly the training needed by local employers and by local industry?

Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Kent TEC is one of the 11 pilot schemes for the training credit and that is having a revolutionary effect on the attitude of young people in our county and in other counties.

Labour Statistics

Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of unemployment in the United Kingdom and the north-west region of England.

Mr. Jackson: In April 1991, the seasonally adjusted level of unemployment in the United Kingdom was 2,175,100, compared with 275,300 in the north-west region.

Mr. Evans: Will the huge further increase in unemployment to be announced later this week demonstrate that the Government's economic strategy is working and that unemployment is a worthwhile price to pay to get inflation down?

Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that unemployment in his constituency of St. Helens is 34 per cent. lower than it was at the time of the last election.

Minimum Wage

Mr. Norris: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has received any representations from the Fabian Society concerning proposals for a national minimum wage.

Mr. Howard: I have not received any representations from the Fabian Society but I have a copy of its recent pamphlet "Making a Minimum Wage Work". The Fabians quote an independent estimate that the Labour party's policy for a national minimum wage could destroy up to 880,000 jobs.

Mr. Norris: As it is now well known that a policy of minimum wages is likely to destroy jobs in their hundreds of thousands, will my right hon. and learned Friend take steps to abolish the remainder of the wages councils, which do nothing to protect employment and everything to destroy jobs?

Mr. Howard: I have already made it clear that wages councils do not have a permanent place in our system. As to the minimum wage, I want to be fair to the Labour party. I am prepared to make it this offer. If it does not accept our estimates of how many jobs a minimum wage would cost, it can let me have its estimate of how many jobs it would cost. I am prepared to have its estimates examined by my Department's officials. We will publish the results and let the country know them so that everyone knows just how devastatingly damaging the Labour party's proposals would be.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the England cricket team on the marvelous

win in Yorkshire yesterday? Does he equally welcome the sharp fall in wage increases announced yesterday and in producer prices announced today? Does not that demonstrate that his Government's policies against inflation have what it takes to build a long and successful innings while the whole country knows that under Labour the economy would be for ever trapped leg before wicket?

The Prime Minister: There are some dangerous metaphors there. I certainly welcome the producer price figures. They are extremely good. The fall in the underlying, as well as the headline, rate of inflation is very welcome news indeed. It shows clearly that we are now well on target for the Budget forecast of a 4 per cent. inflation rate this autumn. It is also encouraging that wage bargaining is beginning to reflect falling inflation and the realities of exchange rate mechanism membership. That is very good indeed for industries' competitiveness. On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I am happy to congratulate the England team, but, in doing so, I remind him and everyone that the West Indies is a formidable side and there is a long way to go yet.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister now be asking his right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) to step down as President of the Bruges group?

The Prime Minister: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher).

Mr. Kinnock: Is it not apparent from today's events and yesterday's events that what we are seeing is not Britain at the heart of Europe but deep division at the heart of the Conservative party? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kinnock: Is it not the Prime Minister's duty to clear up the confusion in the ranks of his own Government, which can do nothing but damage Britain's interests?

The Prime Minister: I am not quite sure what the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) might think about the degree of unity that the right hon. Gentleman suggests is on his Benches. We are negotiating in the intergovernmental conferences on exactly the same basis as that on which we first started. The position on economic and monetary union has not changed in any way. I have set out repeatedly the circumstances and conditions under which we are negotiating.

Mr. Kinnock: Can the Prime Minister tell us why 11 finance Ministers and a couple of Commissioners in a meeting yesterday with the Chancellor got entirely the wrong end of the stick?

The Prime Minister: I can say categorically to the right hon. Gentleman, as I did a moment ago, that there is no change whatever in our negotiating position on Europe. I have repeatedly set that out over recent months.

Mr. Adley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Adley: In welcoming the current ministerial visit to the Lebanon and in recognising the help that the Syiian and Iranian Governments are providing on the hostage problem, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he


recognises an additional ingredient in the conundrum, namely, the holding by the Israeli Government of Sheikh Obeid and other Lebanese hostages? Will he please make known on behalf of his Government to Mr. Shamir that that ingredient is a problem, and that we expect the Israelis to be as helpful as possible in resolving it?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend, and can tell him that the Prime Minister of Israel is aware of my views on that matter. It is wrong for any country to take and hold hostages, and I have communicated that view to Israel on more than one occasion. Our objective is to see the release as soon as possible of all hostages, and we count on any Government with influence to use it for the return of hostages. They should be back with their families where they belong.

Mr. Beith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Beith: How will the Prime Minister respond to the demand from those of his supporters who say that he should veto a single currency here and now? Will he back a single currency when it comes before this Parliament for decision, or is he scared to say?

The Prime Minister: There is no veto as such. There is a requirement that treaty changes can come into effect only if agreed by all member states and by their Parliaments. I have repeatedly said that we will not agree to any treaty on EMU which does not safeguard the interests of this country. I am happy to reiterate that.

Sir Michael Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to welcome the visit to the House of Britain's first astronaut, Helen Sharman? Does he agree that her courage and professionalism is a matter of national pride? Will he take this opportunity to urge British industry and science to join with the Government in the careful and continued look at further opportunities for international space collaboration?

The Prime Minister: I look forward to meeting Miss Sharman shortly and to congratulating her on her courage and on her remarkable achievement. I happily agree with my hon. Friend's other comments.

Sir David Steel: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Sir David Steel: Is the Prime Minister aware that there are some creatures who, when removed from their settled natural habitat, can turn dangerously unpredictable in their behaviour [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Sir David Steel: Since allowing them to wander freely abroad has caused some difficulty—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interruptions take up a great deal of time.

Sir David Steel: —has the right hon. Gentleman any proposals to extend the requirements for muzzles and leashes to the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, every hon. Member has the right and the duty to speak their mind, and that is entirely proper.

Mr. Tony Banks: She never said that.

The Prime Minister: That is entirely proper, and it is a freedom which I propose to exercise myself.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Townsend: Now that Mr. James Baker's middle east peace mission has fallen into serious trouble, and given that the United Kingdom was the first sponsor of United Nations' resolution 242, would not this be a good moment for the United Kingdom and its European Community partners to start playing a far more positive role in the search for a lasting peace settlement to the Arab-Israeli dispute?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have played an important role in that process for many years, and it is right that, in the forthcoming peace conference, the European Community should play a leading role. I welcome the recent Israeli agreement that the European Community presidency should participate in the conference that will be held soon. That is a welcome advance.

Mr. George Howarth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Howarth: If the Prime Minister is so confident about the Government's proposal on health service trusts, why is it that the Mersey regional health authority is keeping its expensively produced business plans for the second wave of opt-outs a secret? It will not even release them to Members of Parliament. Why can we not have all this information out in the open, have a proper debate on the subject and then a ballot? Let us find out what the people of Merseyside think.

The Prime Minister: I believe that there will be many opportunities for Mersey debates in the weeks to come and I look forward to those with great relish. Every reform of the health service has been controversial, but, in due course, each has proved to be irreversible and in the interests of the health service. Our recently introduced changes will follow the same course.

Mr. Norris: Will my right hon. Friend intervene in the local government review to look at a local authority in Britain where people wait eight weeks to have their bins emptied, where thousands of council houses lie empty and where kids have to run the gauntlet of a picket line to get to school? My right hon. Friend will know that this is not fiction; it is Labour Liverpool under so-called moderate Labour control. If this is how the Labour party runs a city, how will it run a country?

The Prime Minister: I strongly suspect that the whole country will have observed how Liverpool has been run and drawn appropriate conclusions from that about how a Labour Government would work on a larger scale. Whether the Labour council is far left or moderate, it has done that great city no favours, just as a Labour Government would do this country no favours.

Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. McKelvey: Will the Prime Minister give some serious consideration to the plight of two brave but unfortunate young men in my constituency, Walter and Ian Baird, of the same family, who are 21 and 16-years-old and who have contracted AIDS through blood transfusion? Although a settlement of over £45,000 for the pair of them was agreed over two months ago, they have yet to be paid. Why is it that 10 per cent. of the payment seems to be held up in Scotland?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will give me precise details of the cases that he has in mind, I shall be happy to examine them and respond to them.

Mr. David Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Evans: Will my right hon. Friend make sure that there are enough funds in the English Heritage budget to ensure that a certain building in the Walworth road is preserved, so that my children and grandchildren can not only read about the demise of socialism but can go and see where the last of the Bolsheviks are working, led by a leader who was a co-producer and director of a play called "Promises, promises"?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his point as only he can.

Dr. Owen: Will the Prime Minister confirm that he is as determined to strengthen and enlarge the European Community as he is to prevent the emergence of a united states of Europe? Will he tell the European Community that positively negotiating and participating in those

negotiations does not in any way surrender a final decision on the overall package to protect the best interests of this country, and that while the devil, as always, is in the detail, so can be the benefits, and that it will probably be December before we can make an overall decision on the package that is negotiated?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely correct in his latter point and I strongly support his remarks about a wider Europe, which I believe should involve not only the EFTA states hut, in due course, the eastern European states. I agree with him that negotiations on the two conferences are of vital importance to the future of this country. Whatever decisions are made may have a profound effect on our trade and well-being. I have set out often enough to the House that the economic case for monetary union has not been made, that we cannot accept the imposition of a single currency and that any proposed changes to the treaty of Rome—a move to a single currency—would require a separate decision by the United Kingdom Government and Parliament—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members do not wish to hear about the important negotiating position of the Government, that is a matter for them. Against that background, I shall negotiate with our European partners for what I believe to be right for this country. It will then be for this House to decide at the conclusion of those negotiations whether it is content to accept them.

BILL PRESENTED

BRITISH NATIONALITY (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Keith Vaz, supported by Mr. Max Madden, presented a Bill to amend Schedule 1 to the British Nationality Act 1981 so as to remove, for applicants aged over 60, the requirement that an applicant should have knowledge of the English, Welsh or Scottish Gaelic language: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 5 July and to be printed. [Bill 174.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &amp;c.

Ordered,

That the draft Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (Enforcement of Overseas Forfeiture Orders) (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Wood.]

Points of Order

Mr. Graham Riddick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that, a week or two ago, a number of Opposition Members raised points of order suggesting that questions concerning national health service hospital trusts could not be tabled in the Table Office. At that time I expressed concern about that. The immediate response from the Table Office to me was that that was inaccurate. Since then, I have written to the Principal Clerk of the Table Office, who has replied to me saying, and I quote—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We do not quote in the Chamber correspondence that we have had with Officers of the House.

Mr. Riddick: I accept that, Mr. Speaker, so to paraphrase the reply that I received, he confirms that the tabling of questions about NHS trusts is entirely in order and that there has been no question—[Interruption.]—of them not being in order. My point of order is to ask you what can be done to stop entirely bogus and inaccurate points of order being raised by Opposition Members for purely party political reasons. Is it not clearly an abuse of this House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think I can help the hon. Member. It is not just the correspondence that he has had with the Clerk. The Leader of the House himself confirmed it, so I do not know what is the reason for his point of order for me.

Mr. Riddick: I was asking you, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The incident took place a few weeks ago, and it was cleared up absolutely by the Leader of the House.

Mr. Riddick: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for pointing that out. Following those points of order, I received a letter from a constituent saying that it was disgraceful that questions about NHS trusts could not be tabled and answered in the House. In other words, Opposition Members successfully communicated to people outside—[Interruption.]—inaccurate information through points of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is robust enough to reply to his constituent in straight terms to put the records straight.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we sat until 3 o'clock this morning and are likely to have to do the same again tonight. It is all very well for hon. Members to raise points of order at this time, it being prime time from their point of view, but it takes time away from other hon. Members later in the evening.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that it is very brief.

Mr. Nicholls: The point of order concerns the accuracy of Hansard. Early-day motion No. 934 concerns the deplorable behaviour of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), but the record shows that it is signed by 11 hon. Members, including one member of the Labour

Whips Office. Although I fully accept that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollock (Mr. Dunnachie) is entitled to sign that excellent motion—we must all be grateful to him for doing so—the difficulty is that, of the 11 signatories, only seven are printed. If one member of the Labour party is prepared to sign it, it would be useful to know which other members would be prepared to do so. If all the names were printed, we could find out how many members of the Labour party agree with the motion. We could also discover which members are so careless that they do not even know what they are signing.

Mr. Speaker: Again, I do not know quite what the hon. Gentleman's point of order is for me. Perhaps he was a Minister when the rules regarding the printing of names on early-day motions were changed. It was done to save costs and time, but the names are available in the Table Office, if required.

Mr. John McAllion: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to a practice whereby Ministers refer parliamentary questions to be answered by the chief executive of executive agencies? That ensures that the answers do not appear in Hansard, thereby denying the right of hon. Members to read those answers in Hansard. It also denies members of the public who read Hansard in public libraries throughout the country the right to see answers to questions that have been tabled by hon. Members. Such a practice is a serious erosion of parliamentary democracy and I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on what you can do about it.

Mr. Speaker: That is old hat, too. [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] Well, it has been going on for the best part of a year, and if the hon. Gentleman objects to it—I understand his feelings—he should draw the matter to the attention of the Leader of the House at Business Questions. I cannot deal with the matter.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Well, I hope that it is legitimate.

Mr. Hughes: Naturally, Mr. Speaker. As you know, a by-election is pending. I seek your guidance on the rules of the House about the moving of the writ for the by-election. It has become plain over the past few days in Liverpool, Walton that the Labour party has been split in two. I seek your guidance on which of the warring factions of the Labour party should seek to move the writ for the by-election: the real or the genuine Labour party.

Mr. Speaker: I have been in the House for long enough —a little longer than the hon. Gentleman—to know that there are divisions on both sides of the House. They are not a matter for me. I consider that every hon. Member in his own right should be able to put the views of his constituents. I could not adjudicate on such a matter.
We must move on to the ten-minute rule Bill.

Mr. David Winnick: Let us have some entertainment.

Mr. Speaker: Well, the television cameras will soon be switched off.

Mr. John McWilliam: Further to the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), Mr. Speaker. The decision about


questions being transferred to the chief executives of executive agencies is taken politically by the Government. We were informed by letter—we were not asked. It has given rise to a practice that denies to the House rights that it previously had, without debate in the Chamber or changes to Standing Orders. You, Mr. Speaker, could rule on this matter, or at least consider it, and direct Ministers to answer questions when they are put. We do not care

whether the chief executive writes to the Minister to give him the answer, as long as it is printed in Hansard so that we can all read it.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that point, but I do not have any more to say about it than I have already said to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). The matter should be taken up with the Leader of the House, perhaps most usefully through the usual channels, of which the hon. Gentleman was once a part.

Cohabitation (Contract Enforcement)

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the enforcement of contracts entered into between cohabiting partners; and for connected purposes.
The Bill seeks to encourage people who share a home or property to make proper contractual arrangements about their joint possessions. It sets out the ownership rights to prevent family quarrels and bad feelings if the relationship breaks down, and gives guidance to the courts when dealing with such cases.
In recent times, there has been a considerable change of behaviour in society as many more people set up homes together without making any formal arrangements. They may be two friends who decide to share a house together. They may be elderly people who decide to give up their own homes to move in with younger relatives and who invest all their savings in that new home or they may be young couples. Nowadays, almost 1 million young couples aged between 18 and 40 live together without any formal arrangements about the property that they jointly use and enjoy. Those relationships are particularly important, as they may involve children who may not be protected if those relationships break down.
Friends can fall out, granny can die or a partnership may break up. In those circumstances, all hell often breaks loose, because there is a dispute about who owns what. There is no specific body of law to protect people in those circumstances, even if a contract between the parties exists. For historical reasons, the courts have been loth to recognise the intention behind such agreements even if they exist. That attitude harks back to the time when a man and woman who lived together without a formal marriage were deemed to be living in sin.
Couples who live together may do so through choice, but sometimes they do so because one of them cannot obtain a divorce from a previous partner. Such relationships can break down, as do marriages, but whereas both partners are much better protected under matrimonial law and are usually entitled to equal shares in the joint property, there is no such protection for couples who are simply living together.
It is a commonly held belief that, after living together for some time, people acquire rights as the common-law wife or husband. That is true in Scotland, but it is not true of England and Wales, and has not been for the past 230 years. People do not automatically acquire rights to maintenance or, in the case of the death of one of the partners, to property that was held jointly during that relationship. A woman left in such circumstances often has no right even to remain in what is the family home to care for the children of the relationship. There is a case for the Government to introduce legislation to make matters clear.
In a recent case, a woman who had helped to build up a successful business in partnership with the man with whom she had lived for 10 years was told by a judge that she had no rights to the value of that business because, early on in the relationship, she had refused marriage. In those circumstances, the judge decided that she could not claim any ownership of the business that had been built up.
Another couple lived together for 30 years without being married, because the man was married to a Catholic who would not divorce him. That couple had six children and they built up a home. On his death, however, the woman found that she had no rights to that home or to any other property. All the property was claimed by the man's wife.
Such cases cause a great deal of unhappiness. People often seek the help of lawyers, but they are unable to give it, as there is no body of case law from which the lawyer can draw. He therefore has to fall back on the property rights involved. One is told that, if one has a receipt for the house, the three-piece suite, the kitchen cabinet or whatever, one can claim for it. Otherwise, it is usually deemed to be the property of one partner, and not necessarily the partner who paid for it.
Three young women solicitors of Coventry have done a great deal of work on this subject. They have written an excellent book to explain the problem called "Living Together". Those who are interested may well obtain a copy. The authors outline many sad cases. There was a case in my constituency of two policemen who were killed while working as divers. One was married to his partner, so his wife had full rights to pensions and so on. In the other case, the relationship was not a formal marriage so the woman got nothing—no pension, no house, nothing of what she was entitled to.
Increasingly these days, elderly people give up their own homes and go to live with younger relatives. They may put a lot of money into these buildings—perhaps buying a new and larger house—but without a will or a contract, their estate can make no claim on the property that they brought into the relationship. That is another good reason for encouraging contracts of this sort.
In other cases, young people sell their homes and go to live with grandad or granny, but they find that they cannot get on together and that the money that they put into repairs or modernisation is completely lost to them, and they can get nothing of it back.
All these events need regularisation by new legislation. The courts need guidance so that judges dealing with these cases know what Parliament expects of them. Young women especially go into these relationships starry-eyed and come out baggy-eyed and the worse for wear. It is time Parliament considered the matter seriously and introduced some sanity and guidance to the law. There is an urgent need for the Government to give such guidance to the public and the courts.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Mr. Bob Dunn, Mr. Barry Field, Mr. Ivan Lawrence, Mr. David Evans, Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. David Shaw, Mr. Andrew McKay and Mr. Jonathan Aitken.

COHABITATION (CONTRACT ENFORCEMENT)

Mrs. Teresa Gorman accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the enforcement of contracts entered into between cohabiting partners; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 21 June and to be printed. [Bill 175.]

Orders of the Day — Local Government Finance and Valuation Bill

Considered in Committee.

[MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair.]

Clause 1

REPEAL OF SECTION WI OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE ACT 1988

Mr. David Blunkett: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 1, line 6, at beginning insert—
`( ) This section shall have effect for the period between Royal Assent and a date specified by an Order made by the Secretary of State, such date to be not later than the date of implementation of a scheme of local taxation which shall be based on the occupation of property.'.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No 15, in page 1, line 9, leave out from 'shall' to end and insert
`have no effect during the period specified in accordance with subsection () above'.
No. 19, in page 1, line 11, leave out from 'also' to end and insert
'have no effect during the period specified in accordance with subsection () above'.
No. 20, in page 1, line 17, after 'subsections', insert (),'.
No. 38, in page 1, line 19, leave out '1992' and insert `1993'
No. 57, in clause 7, page 7, line 2, leave out 'two' and insert '12'.

Mr. Blunkett: First, with the indulgence of the Committee, I should like to add the thanks of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) and of all elected Sheffield Members to the thanks offered to Helen Sharman by the Prime Minister earlier this afternoon for her presence in the House. All of us from Sheffield and across Britain wish her well and congratulate her on her tremendous feat on behalf of the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
Today and tomorrow, spent in Committee, should and could have been used not to centralise power still further in the hands of the Government but to bring immediate relief to poll tax payers across Britain. We could have used this time to ensure that the poll tax disappeared by 1 April next year and that people who have suffered under it could breathe a sigh of relief knowing that a property tax would be reinstated. Instead, this afternoon, we have a petty little measure which, as can be seen from the Order Paper, seeks to cap all authorities in Britain irrespective of their size or spending power.
The amendment seeks to limit the range of capping powers to ensure that the proposed future property tax —hopefully, our fair rates—is introduced as quickly as possible. If there is not a general election between now and this date 12 months hence we will have sat through the winter on the proposed council tax. If we are to see a future

in which people are free to raise and spend money sensibly, it is clear that capping should go at the earliest opportunity.
The Bill seeks to do the exact opposite—to spread capping to those authorities with budgets of less than £15 million per year, irrespective of their circumstances and the method by which those resources are raised and spent.
It will be recalled that, originally, capping was not to apply at all under the poll tax. In its original draft, it was conceived to be unnecessary, because the poll tax would bring accountability to every local authority in Britain. It was said that the poll tax would bring accountability by ensuring that the individual paying a flat rate tax would be made aware of exactly what money was being raised and spent in the locality—that it would not be spread across the generality of electors, but would be concentrated on each individual. As a consequence, they would feel the pain—I use the word advisedly—that came from spending on public services, and they would remove elected representatives who were minded to raise and spend money on the very public services that Conservative Members praise one day and do their best to destroy the next.
When it was discovered that the Prime Minister of the day was minded to keep hold of the bureaucratic central controls which capping had brought from 1985, when it was realised that there were electors throughout the country of all shades of local authority political opinion who would want to spend money on services rather than destroy them, the Government had a change of heart.
The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who now occupies the post of Secretary of State for unemployment, decided in a speech on 28 October 1987 that capping would be necessary. But, in introducing the idea that, after all, central controls and bureaucratic power would be needed, he said:
Let me make it clear that we are only taking such powers because of the appalling record of a dozen or so authorities in managing their affairs under the present system. I have every confidence that the pressures of accountability will in general deal with the problem of overspending by local councils.
He went on to say:
The new system will be short, sharp and effective.
It has certainly been short and it has certainly been sharp, but no one in the Chamber would describe it as having been effective. The poll tax has not been effective either in its intentions or in terms of bringing to heel the desires of local people to have their own services.

Mr. Clive Soley: It got rid of the previous Prime Minister.

Mr. Blunkett: We must be grateful for small mercies.
On 17 March 1988, in Standing Committee E dealing with the Local Government Finance Bill—I remember it well, as will my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), because we used to sit until 2 am listening to the verbiage that poured out in favour of the poll tax, and it came as a great relief to me shortly after 17 March to enter hospital with pneumonia and have the relief of being at death's doorstep take away the necessity of sitting through the proceedings on the poll tax Bill—the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, who was one of a number of people who were responsible for the poll tax and all its works who are still in the Prime Minister's Cabinet, said:
Its effect is to remove from the field of selection the large majority of authorities, whose total spending is relatively


insignificant. The community charges levied by those authorities will generally make up only a fraction of total local community charge when the precept of other authorities is taken into account. From the point of view, therefore, of protecting local charge payers, it seems unnecessary to keep such authorities in the field of charge limitation."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 17 March 1988; c. 1491.]
That is about to be overturned by the Bill.
I realise that Ministers' statements are not worth the paper that they are written on, but it is opportune to remind the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen now seated on the Government Front Bench of what their colleagues said. The simple lesson for the British people is that they should not believe a word of what is said or written by Ministers, because shortly afterwards they will change their minds. As the then Secretary of State for the Environment said in 1985, when chided about the introduction of capping after it had been made clear in the early 1980s that it would never be introduced:
That was then, and now is now.
On Report and Third Reading on 25 April 1988, the Government had an historic opportunity to pass amendments to banding, but they did not do so. Instead, the then Minister for Local Government said:
We have made it clear on more than one occasion that we see a capping power introduced in the clause as a reserve measure. It is not a measure to be used as a matter of course". —[Official Report, 25 April 1988; Vol. 132, c. 47.]
Today, that power will be used as a matter of course. It will be applied to every authority, whatever its level of spending or circumstances.
I shall be interested to hear the Government's arguments, but there cannot be any economic justification for such a measure. Small authorities with budgets of less than £15 million do not make up a sufficient spending pattern to have any impact on the national economy, even if we accept that such local spending made a difference.
If we take all the 87 authorities spending £15 million or less that would have been affected by this year's capping criteria, the total sum involved would have reached £102 million. On 3 June 1991, the Secretary of State said that there might well be a de minimis regulation in respect of authorities that spent more than £26 above the standard spending assessment. Therefore, only 40 of those 87 authorities would have been affected. They include Conservative, Liberal and Labour-controlled authorities across the whole country that do not share attitudes of profligacy or unreasonableness or, as the Minister described it in 1988, a tendency towards irrational behaviour. Instead, they seek to provide services for their residents. They do not represent any economic disadvantage to the country as a whole.
Since 1970, the proportion of revenue spending by local government as a proportion of gross domestic product fell from 8·2 per cent. to 7·2 per cent. The capital figure is even more dramatic. Over the same 21 years, capital spending as a proportion of GDP fell from 3·6 per cent. to 1·8 per cent.—an enormous cut of 50 per cent. in the amount spent on repairing and improving our schools, housing, roads and environment. The Government can advance no economic or moral argument for their action, or justify it in other terms. It will only affect people detrimentally.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Does my hon. Friend agree with Mr. Roy Thomason, chairman of the Association of District Councils? Mr. Thomason has said:

We appear to have a Government that is being run by the Treasury for the sake of Treasury convenience.

Mr. Blunkett: I think that the Conservative chairman of the ADC knows what he is talking about, given his experience of dealing not only with the Government but with the electorate in the area that he represents and in which he lives. [Interruption.] I think that the Conservative Whip is waiting for his list. "I've got a little list": 87 names would have been on it this year. The Government believe that their own supporters and elected councillors have let them down. That has happened for one simple reason. Those councillors wanted to provide services, and they wanted to spend money to maintain them.
4 pm
The Government, not the local authorities, are primarily responsible for the size, and variation in size, of bills throughout the country, and there is no doubt that the way in which the proposed council tax would protect the rich would worsen the position dramatically. Over the next two days, we shall be debating the gearing effect. That will have a drastic impact on the amount that an authority must spend to raise a single extra pound to spend on services.
In Tower Hamlets, the ratio will be 11·3:1, while in affluent south Buckinghamshire it will be only 2:1. We have tabled this amendment because of the dramatic difference between the bills that people in different areas would have to pay. The poorer the area, the more money people living there would have to find to enable an extra £1 to be spent to meet their needs.
That is silly. In such circumstances, capping is not only absurd but positively immoral; it places a much heavier burden on the most deprived areas than on the most affluent. People living in deprived inner-city areas will not only pay more but receive less. This is the new inner-city policy: take from those who have not, and ensure that the benefits go to those who have—unless, of course, the all-ages index of social need to be provided under the council tax arrangements shows Buckinghamshire to be more deprived than Tower Hamlets.
The distribution of the national business rate has also affected the position—as have the standard spending assessments, which were originally to have been varied and improved but which will now remain the same. My hon. Friends will say more about that when we discuss other amendments.
All in all, we are in a mess. The mess that the Government are making, and the Conservatives' decision to continue with capping, illustrates their bewilderment about how to deal with local government finance, their despair in not knowing which way to turn and their undoubted disdain for the need to provide decent services.
The Conservatives want capping, but without pain; centralism, but without the blame; and cuts, but not in their own pet projects or their own areas. That was made clear in the debate that took place immediately before the spring recess. It is very simple: their measures are intended to show some people that they mean business in terms of undermining public services and public spending, while also ensuring that it is the local councillors who must implement the cuts in essential provision.
This is a petty, unnecessary and anti-democratic measure. Our amendment seeks to modify it, and, at the earliest opportunity, to remove it altogether. Nothing in


this afternoon's debate will hide the fact that the Government wish to pass the buck, ignoring the consequences of their actions—the cuts, and the hurt that they intend to cause—and, once again, trying to blame local government for what is of their own making.

Mr. David Bellotti: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 38 and 57, tabled by the Liberal Democrats.
The proposals before us attack the heart of local democracy. The Bill is before us because the poll tax failed. We are dealing with it after, rather than before, the local elections, because, the Government would have lost 2,000 seats rather than losing nearly 1,000 at the local elections in May if these proposals had been before the local people then. We are dealing with the Bill as long as possible before a general election, because its provisions are so unpopular.
The Liberal Democrats oppose capping in principle—we want to make that clear. We want a grant equalisation system devised between the local authorities rather than devised here by central Government. Our long-term aim is to transfer the raising of local government finance to local government, with a consequent reduction in national taxation. Clearly, that cannot be done immediately, especially given that some local authorities, which are controlled by the left, would spend without limit, irrespective of people's ability to pay, while other local authorities would cut services and fail to provide the level and quality of service needed by deprived people in our communities.
The way round those problems is to make local government more accountable—the Government have often talked about doing that, but they have never achieved it. Liberal Democrats believe that local government could be made accountable by ensuring that all local authorities were fully representative of their local communities. That could be achieved only by proportional representation, so that the Lambeths and the Hackneys, and the low-spending Conservative authorities, could no longer exist.
Our two amendments would delay the Bill for a year, to take it beyond the general election. We consider that only fair, because the Government have often said that they would not cap small authorities that spend less than £15 million. They have never gone before the people to ask for their endorsement of such a policy. Another reason for wanting 12 months' delay is to enable local authorities to consider the measure and begin to plan for a worst case scenario.
If our amendments are not accepted, the worst case scenario would be that at least 88 districts would have to examine their services—refuse collection, leisure, street cleaning and so on—to see where they could considerably reduce their costs. It would be a difficult exercise because of Government policy on competitive tendering. Many local authorities have spent much of their money in giving contracts to private companies, and accepting some in-house tenders for many services. Such costs are tied up for periods of more than a year; often they are tied up for three years, and some authorities have given options for longer periods.
By introducing the Bill immediately, the Government will force local authorities into a situation where they have no room for manoeuvre because of competitive tendering, yet they will be required to make cuts in refuse collection, leisure, street cleaning and so on.
Perhaps more important is the fact that, during the next 12 months, when we are trying to get the economy of the country going, local authorities will be denied the spending opportunities that they had planned in order to create wealth in the local economy. For example, many tourist areas are trying to cater for people coming from overseas to spend money in this country, but that requires proactive marketing. The Bill will require local authorities that have planned to spend in that way to cut their proposals, thus cutting the improvements that would have benefited the local economy.
The Bill is rushed, and has not been thought through. A long list of authorities throughout the country, of all political complexions, will suffer, and people in those communities will suffer too. The least the Government can do to lessen that suffering is to agree to our amendments to delay the Bill for a year. They have made a drastic U-turn. Therefore, it is only fair for them to give the people of the country an opportunity to comment on it. Our amendments would give them that opportunity.

The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) and I served on the Committee that considered the Community Charges (Substitute Settings) Bill at Christmas. I enjoyed myself so much that it was with a heavy heart that I thought that that was the last Committee on which we would serve for some time. But in local government, one never knows how fortune will smile on one. Since then, we have had the good fortune to be on the Committee that considered the Community Charges (General Reduction) Bill. We thought that that would be the last time that we would serve on a Committee together this year, but here we are joyfully considering this Bill.
The hon. Member for Brightside began by saying that the Government should have offered immediate relief to community charge payers. I remind him that, under the Community Charges (General Reduction) Bill, we offered immediate relief of £140 on the charges set by local authorities. As I recall it, the Opposition were rather scathing about that measure.

Mr. Bryan Gould: rose—

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman has entered the Chamber and wishes to intervene.

Mr. Gould: I left the Chamber briefly, but have returned to listen to the Minister's first speech. As he mentioned the £140 reduction, and as he must know that many people have discovered to their consternation that they will not receive the full reduction of £140, is he yet in a position to say how many of the 38 million poll tax payers will receive the full £140?

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman has been trying to whip up this storm, but it will not be whipped up. The public understand perfectly well that, if they are already receiving considerable help with their community charge, it would not be appropriate for everyone to receive the same reduction on their Bill. For example, many millions of people are paying only 20 per cent. of the community charge, yet the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) proposes that one should take £140 off the community charge bills of people who pay only £60 or £70. That seems to be an absolutely absurd point to make.

Mr. Gould: The point that I seek to make, which is keenly felt by many millions of people, is that the Government's constant proclamation that bills have been reduced by £140 is wrong. True to form in the history of the poll tax, when we inquire who gets the full benefit it is not those at the lower end of the income scale but those at the top end. All I want to know—I am sure that many others would like to hear the answer from the Minister, who surely must have some idea of it—is how many people receive the benefit that he constantly proclaims is being made available to everybody.

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman's premise is incorrect. I have never claimed that everybody's bill would be reduced by £140. If the hon. Gentleman had entered the Chamber in time to hear what I was saying, he would be aware that I said £140 off the community charges that had been set by local authorities. That is a different matter. If people are not paying £140 in community charge—many people are not—it is absurd to think that they should get£140 off their community charge.

Mr. Blunkett: rose—

Mr. Portillo: I shall not get far with this speech without interruption.

Mr. Blunkett: I cannot resist asking why that does not apply to the people of Wandsworth.

Mr. Portillo: The people of Wandsworth benefit from a Conservative administration, which set a community charge of £136. They have been uniquely disadvantaged among the people of Great Britain. Everybody else has enjoyed £140 off the community charge set by their local authority, but the people of Wandsworth have enjoyed only £136 off their community charge. The hon. Gentleman raised a delicate point—I do not know whether he intended to do so—because the people of Wandsworth have a complaint on that matter. It would be wrong to give them —4 each; zero is the appropriate figure.
The hon. Member for Brightside went through a series of quotations from Ministers—he did not quote me, but he quoted many others—saying that we hoped that we should not have to have capping. I share his disappointment that we have not been able to get by without it. I should have preferred accountability to work its way through. However, we have experience to judge from and we have seen that where local authorities did not face immediate re-election or perhaps where there were two tiers of authority and people were confused about accountability, local authorities did not face the pressure of accountability to the point where they acted responsibly in setting their charges. There has been a vast increase of 14 per cent. in local authority spending in a single year, and community charges have caused great pain to some people.
Although the Labour party has been willing to proclaim examples of people who have suffered because of high community charges—usually set by Labour authorities—it has not been willing to provide the logical answer to the problem which is that there must be some restraint on local authorities that are imposing such a burden.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Portillo: I shall give way in a moment.
I say to the hon. Member for Brightside that the difference between his party and mine is that we, with sadness, have learnt from experience, but the Labour party has not.

Mr. Campbell: My local authority in Blyth Valley has increased its budget since 1979 by 236 per cent. I cannot understand why on earth my authority, having not spent any more money in real terms since the Government came to power, will be capped for being a spendthrift authority. Will the Minister explain that?

Mr. Portillo: I shall deal with the issue of how capping works in a moment, and I want to pick up a point made by the hon. member for Brightside, which is pertinent to the question asked by the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell). The hon. Member for Brightside said that it was our aspiration to cap all local authorities, but that is not so. We are bringing all local authorities within the legislation that governs capping, and that is very different. This year we have set out in advance the criteria under which local authorities would be capped if they set excessive budgets absolutely or if they increased their budgets successively from year to year.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Portillo: I shall give way in a moment.
The effect has been that all local authorities, with the exception of 14, have been able to set budgets that did not fall within those criteria. Of the 14 that exceeded the criteria and were therefore capped, six accepted without challenge the cap that we imposed. The remaining eight authorities challenged it. Therefore, although the legislation applied to a large number of local authorities, it was necessary to cap only a few because the others, with advance knowledge of the criteria, were able to bring their budgets into line. In the future, as we extend capping to local authorities with budgets of less than £15 million, I expect to see a similar effect. A large number of authorities could potentially be within the capping regime, but I expect that only a small number would cause us to take capping action.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Is not the Minister making a distinction without a difference? If a capping level is determined beforehand, clearly no district authority can go beyond that level because it would put itself into the most abysmal economic circumstances. In a sense, it is being asked to cap itself so the Government do not need to make use of the capping provisions. However, the authority is being capped whether it has done it itself in advance to avoid being capped or whether the Government have engaged the capping provision.

Mr. Portillo: It is true that the local authority has to exercise restraint and that it does so under the criteria that are set by the Government. However, it is extraordinary to say that it is a distinction without a difference. Most local authorities will say that the painfulness of having to make changes once a cap has been applied, and especially if they did not know the rules regarding capping in advance, is out of all comparison with the position whereby they have


a year in which to adjust their budget. They know in advance what the criteria will be so they can make sensible plans to fit in with them. I remind the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) that we are not capping any local authority below its standard spending assessment. This year, we are allowing those who came in at the SSAs a 9 per cent. increase on their previous budget. We did not regard any budget as absolutely excessive, as opposed to applying the criteria from year to year, unless it was 12·5 per cent. above the SSA.

Mr. William O'Brien: The Minister said that the Government are not capping authorities that budget within or below the SSA. Can we take it that that is an assurance that will be given for all time and that no authority that spends below its SSA will be capped, as decreed by the Government?

Mr. Portillo: I have no intention of capping authorities below the SSA.
The hon. Members for Brightside and for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) seemed to find this extension to local authorities with budgets below £15 million puzzling. As the hon. Member for Brightside said, it is perfectly true that that does not make a huge difference in macro-economic terms. What local authorities with budgets below £15 million spend does not make much difference to the total level of public expenditure. However, I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is so fixated on that point. Should not he be concerned, as I am, about the effect on individuals and on the bills that people have to pay?
One could be forgiven for thinking that the hon. Member for Eastbourne is a spokesman for local authorities and their concerns. Time and again, today and in his previous speech on the subject, he mentioned that local authorities were under attack. I never heard him talk for a moment about local people and about the need to defend local people from paying excesssive bills. That is where the Government's concern comes in. Derwentside, whose budget is below £15 million a year, has put £95 extra on people's community charge bills. That is £180 for a couple and progressively more for a larger household. Those are significant sums.
We often hear the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats complain about the burden that has been placed on people and which is difficult for them to afford. However, the burdens are caused by the authorities putting on extra amounts, such as £95 in the case of Derwentside. The crocodile tears shed by Opposition parties are not followed by a willingness to take action to protect people against having such burdens thrust on them.
We propose to introduce a council tax. The community charge, which was proposed to come in at levels that would have been broadly acceptable and which people thought were reasonable for individuals to pay, was forced up and up by a spree in local authority spending. The reason why the community charge turned out to be so much more than the Government had predicted was that local authorities chose the moment of its introduction to spend far more.
I am not prepared to see history repeat itself over the council tax. We have published the figures for what the council tax would have been for this year if it had been in operation. It is not a prediction for the future, but a statement of what would have happened this year. None

the less, people will expect when we introduce the council tax that the figures that they are asked to pay will be recognisable and that they will resemble the figures for this year. This time we will oblige local authorities to increase their spending only reasonably. Those that already spend significantly above their SSAs will be obliged progressively to come down towards they so that we can deliver the council tax at figures that people will regard as reasonable and fair.
The Labour party differs with us in the extreme on this matter. It has made a great deal of its own figures—miscalculated figures, I might say. It stands to reason that if we seek to collect the same amount of money from the same number of people—[Interruption.]—I shall not give way to the hon. Member for Dagenham on this point because he misunderstands it again and again—the average amount will be the same. But I shall let that pass.
The important point that I want to make to the hon. Gentleman is that he has based his figures on a level of spending by local authorities which has been achieved by the Government only because we had capping powers available to us. We predicted total standard spending by local authorities this year of £39 billion and we have brought it in at £39·2 billion through the use of the threat to cap.
The hon. Member for Dagenham cannot have it both ways. He resisted the policy that made the level of spending to which I referred possible, yet he now seems to take credit for tax proposals that are based on that level of spending. More particularly for the future, he is not prepared to allow any limitation of local authority spending. The amount that local authorities spend would rise massively if there were a Labour Government intent on not capping local authorities. The bills that the hon. Member for Dagenham believes could be delivered under his rating policy could not be delivered, because local authority spending would rise through the roof.
When the council tax is introduced under this Government, with the accompaniment of the capping criteria, we shall ensure that we deliver reasonable figures. They will be brought about by the restraint that capping imposes on local authorities. That is the greatest single difference between the Government and the Labour party. We can deliver figures like those which we have proposed to the general public. The Labour party could not deliver them, because it believes that we should return to an era in which local authority spending is allowed to rip.
What an extraordinary idea it is that we should delay the extension of capping to local authorities with budgets of below £15 million. The protection that we are talking about is needed now, for the coming year. Local authorities that might be capped will want to know well in advance what the criteria are so that they can avoid being brought into the capping net. For that reason, I believe that it is right not only to introduce the extension to budgets below £15 million but to do so as quickly as possible.

Mr. Blunkett: We believe that the people of a locality should be allowed to protect themselves from this or any other Government. In other words, when people vote in local elections, they should have some chance of seeing their votes matter. If not, and if whatever people do the Government of the day believe that they must protect people from themselves, what is the point of holding local elections? Why not appoint gauleiters? We realise that the


Secretary of State had that in mind but that the Cabinet felt that it was not appropriate to admit it before a general election. Largesse would be passed down via an elected mayor to local people and the mayor would have to do a deal with the Secretary of State, presumably over dinner in the evening. Unlike his predecessor, who was in favour of long lunches in the United States where contracts would be made, the present Secretary of State prefers dinners and wine in the evenings.
It is a pretty poor state of affairs when a Government believe that they have to protect the electorate from the electorate. It is only fair to point out that, far from becoming milder and more consensual—I said consensual, by the way—and far from believing in public service and public spending, the Government's attitude has become worse. On 25 April 1988, the Minister I quoted earlier, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), said:
The people of an area certainly will be able to vote for a relatively high-spending authority if they so choose."—[Official Report, 25 April 1988; Vol. 132, c. 51.]
In the debate on this Bill in June 1991, in the run-up to an election, when we are told that we have a Prime Minister who is more gentle and caring and who believes in public service, quality and spending, we have an even tighter, more bureaucratic and centralist regime in which everyone must be whipped into line. The same is true of the future.
How are the proposed council tax figures made up and what are the criteria for them? Exactly what will councils be held to? The Minister said that his outline figures, which illustrated what would have been the case this year, will be used in future. He said that councils that levy greater sums than those which have been laid down will be brought into line progressively. He should have said regressively.
Long-term capping and spending reductions, cuts in education, leisure, the environment, libraries, transport and the social services are all prefaced by the promise made by the Minister. There will be cuts to reduce the figure to the projected council tax level, which the Government dreamed up out of the blue and wrote on the back of an envelope when the chairman of the Conservative party made his amazing pronouncement on the "Today" programme on which my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) delivered the coup de grace.

Mr. Portillo: That is wrong.

Mr. Blunkett: I do not often speak French because, as the Minister says, my accent leaves something to be desired. Unlike some people, I do not spend enough time perfecting it in France. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Would the hon. Gentleman like a villa?"] I accept that offer without equivocation.

Mr. William O'Brien: It was Aston Villa.

Mr. Blunkett: Do not mention Aston Villa to me.
We shall not divide the Committee on the amendment, not because we do not feel strongly about it but because we know that we have to make progress. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 7, leave out 'which' and insert 'so far as it'.

The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 8, leave out 'or Welsh'.

Mr. Murphy: The amendments seek to exempt Wales from the extension of poll tax capping to authorities with budgets of less than £15 million. It surprises me and my hon. Friends in Welsh constituencies that the legislation is necessary at all, because to date no Welsh local authority has been capped or is likely to be capped. The previous Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), announced on 3 April last year that he had determined principles for designating authorities for charge limitation similar to those determined for England.
On the basis of those principles, about which we never knew, the right hon. Gentleman decided not to designate any Welsh local authorities. Therefore, we never knew which Welsh local authorities might have been designated, because no one was told the principles of the criteria for capping in Wales. We thought that the present Secretary of State for Wales would change everything and would publish the capping criteria for Welsh local authorities, but on 31 October he said that he would not announce such criteria, and we are still effectively in the dark.
The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities said that English local authorities would be able to avoid being capped, because they know exactly what caused capping, Welsh councils are not able to do that, because they are not given any details. I sincerely hope that the Under-Secretary will give us some hint whether, as poll tax capping will apply to all Welsh authorities, the Bill will mean that we in Wales will know what the criteria are.
Until today, only a few districts in Wales—Cardiff, Newport, Swansea and Rhondda—and the county councils were eligible for capping. The Bill will extend that eligibility to every one of the 37 Welsh districts, and to all the Welsh county councils. Many in Welsh local government feel that there are other reasons why no criteria for Wales have been published. We want to know why we have to follow the English example although we have not followed England in publishing criteria.
The irony is that Welsh local authorities—both district and county—have had responsible and well managed budgets. They have not overspent and they do not have anywhere near the mismanagement that would require capping. They have reacted responsibly to the Government's taunts. Over the past few years, while they have had to respond to the enormous problems created by the poll tax, they have reacted in a way that should be followed by local authorities throughout the United Kingdom, but they have had little thanks for that.
Now they are being told—to use French in my turn—that they are the betes noires of local government. That is despite their responsible behaviour and despite the tremendous jobs they have done, given the enormous financial and economic pressures under which they have had to operate. Now, they are being told that they cannot be trusted by the Government in the matter of the budgets for which they are responsible over the next couple of years.
The right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) and the present Secretary of State for Wales have both said, not only on the Floor of the House and in Committee but outside in the Principality, that the relationship between Welsh local government and the Welsh Office has been exemplary. The two have worked together on the local economy, for jobs, and for the valleys initiative.None of that squares with the fact that local authorities have now slavishly to follow England and are regarded as the betes noires of local government.
There is no demand for capping from local government, electors, institutions, academics or the majority of political parties in the Principality. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) referred to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). Day in and day out, week in and week out, my hon. Friend and I had to listen to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments in favour of the poll tax and to his explanations of why it was so great. He said:
The community charges levied by those authorities will generally make up only a fraction of the total local community charge when the precept of other authorities is taken into account. From the point of view, therefore, of protecting local charge payers, it seems unnecessary to keep such authorities in the field for charge limitation."—[0fficial Report, Standing Committee E; 17 March 1988, c. 1491]
There was a Welshman from Llanelli, albeit one who had gone to Folkestone, telling us that there was no need for the majority of Welsh councils to be subject to this ludicrous poll tax capping.
Wales is not demanding capping. Nor does it want the Bill. It wants an end to the poll tax in the Principality. There has been in the last couple of years an enormous outcry in the Principality about the unfairness of the poll tax, which has offended the Welsh sense of fair play.
Of particular concern to Welsh local government—because it could bring them within the criteria for poll tax capping—is the amount of money that has been spent in the Principality to set up, administer and sweeten the poll tax. Over £100 million has been deliberately wasted by the Government in that relatively small country as the Welsh Office and its Ministers tried to administer a tax that had no public support.
The tragedy of that is that, according to the Council of Welsh Districts, we could he landed with the tax not, as the Government have said, until 1993 but possibly until 1994. The reality of that is perhaps somewhat different, bearing in mind that there will not be a Conservative Government in 1994. From 1992, Labour will be in power. Meanwhile, the present plan of the Welsh Office is to extend the poll tax, and Welsh councils are reporting that it will not be possible for them to change over to the council tax in time for 1993.
We are told that the whole purpose of the legislation is to increase accountability. The consultation paper, which I assume applies to Wales as well as England, says:
It will avoid the risk of a repeat of the substantial increase in spending which accompanied the transition to the community charge.
What increase? There was no increase in the Principality, other than what had to be spent to set up the poll tax.
The only accountability, as my hon. Friends have argued, is through the ballot box, and in May, in the one local authority in Wales which Conservative Members had argued should be capped—the capital city, Cardiff—we saw the Conservatives swept out of office. Labour won the city through the ballot box, despite the Conservatives

arguing that the city council should be poll tax-capped. If ever there was a case for realising that accountability is through democratic means and not through the nonsense of poll tax capping, that was proved in the capital of Wales in the local elections last May.
Wales should be exempted from this mean Bill because in the Principality it is unwanted and unnecessary, and it will be unloved. It will do nothing to improve the accountability of Welsh local authorities or their services in education, housing, transport and social services. Nothing in the Bill will improve the quality of life of the people in the Principality. It will sour relations even more between central and local government in Wales.
The only way to achieve a revitalised Welsh local government structure is proper accountability through annual elections, a proper fair rating system and unitary all-purpose authorities. Within the next two or three years, with the return of a Labour Government, all those things will become a reality.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): This group of amendments seeks to confine the practical application of the clause to England. It would deny to the charge payers of Wales the protection afforded by the Bill to the charge payers of England.
The existing law on charge capping in section 101 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 applies equally to Wales and England. The provisions of this measure will do the same. There can be no possible justification for treating Wales and England differently. All authorities in Wales, regardless of how large or small their budgets may be, have a duty to their charge payers to exercise prudence and restraint in formulating their expenditure plans.
The Bill gives my right hon. Friend power to act in the interests of charge payers with any authority in Wales that may not budget sensibly, thereby imposing an unreasonable burden on its charge payers. My right hon. Friend did not cap any Welsh authority in 1991–92, and 1 hope that it will not be necessary for him to do so in future years, but he has made it clear that he will not hesitate to use his powers if he considers it necessary to do so.
4.45 pm
The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) talked in mock indignation about the fury of the people of Wales. That fury is so confined that he has sitting with him on the Opposition Front Bench only one of his hon. Friends from Wales, plus one Back Bencher who has just wandered in. That is the strength of the Labour party's opposition to the clause and support for its amendments.

Mr. Murphy: How many Conservative Members are here to support the Minister?

Mr. Bennett: We are content with the Bill as it is. The hon. Gentleman has tabled amendments but few of his hon. Friends are here to support them. That says something for the bogus indignation of the Labour party on this issue.
The hon. Member for Torfaen asked about the future criteria which may be set. The Secretary of State for Wales did not announce provisional criteria for capping in advance of budget setting by authorities. For 1992–93, my right hon. Friend will wish to consult authorities on the issue in advance of an announcement on the criteria for capping which he is minded to adopt. I should make it


clear that that in no way diminishes his determination to take vigorous capping action should it prove necessary to do so.
The hon. Member for Torfaen said that all authorities in Wales had been moderate. I wish that were true. The average charge set in Wales in 1991–92 was £261, a full £33 above the community charge standard spending—the CCSS—and £29 higher than that set in 1990–91. Within that, districts, including communities, set an average charge of £51, about £13 above their CCSS component; and counties set an average charge of £211, about £21 above their CCSS component.
It is clear that some authorities have not been as prudent as they might have been. It is vital that in this measure, which applies to England and Wales, we should not exempt local authorities in Wales from being prudent in future years, that community charge payers should have the protection afforded to them now, and that that should be extended to authorities with budgets of £15 million or less.
These amendments would introduce into the statutory provisions relating to charge capping an inconsistency between England and Wales when none now exists. They would deny to Welsh charge payers the comprehensive protection that the Bill seeks to provide for Wales and England alike. I urge the Committee to reject them.

Mr. Murphy: What the Minister said did not surprise me. Even so, the majority of Welsh Members do not share his view that Welsh local government is in any sense profligate. Indeed, the Secretary of State has often made play of the fact that the Welsh poll tax figures are considerably lower than those in England. That has happened not as a result of Government grant but because Welsh local authorities are good housekeepers.
There seems no reason why we should follow the English example and accept these provisions. There is no reason why we should not be inconsistent and have a rule in Wales that is different from that which applies in England. After all, the Welsh local government structure is separate, the revenue support grant is dealt with separately, and there is a separate association level in Wales which apparently has been working well.
Despite all that, the Minister tells us that threats will continue to be used against Welsh local government. It will do no good for anybody in the Principality slavishly to follow a bad English example. We have tonight an opportunity for hon. Members who represent the Principality, and others, to show clearly that the only way in which local government is accountable to its electors is through the ballot box. That is why we shall divide the Committee on this group of amendments.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 195, Noes 264.

Division No. 162]
[4.48 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Armstrong, Hilary


Allen, Graham
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy


Alton, David
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack


Anderson, Donald
Ashton, Joe


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)





Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Home Robertson, John


Barron, Kevin
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Battle, John
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Beckett, Margaret
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Beith, A. J.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bell, Stuart
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Bellotti, David
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Ingram, Adam


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Janner, Greville


Benton, Joseph
Johnston, Sir Russell


Bermingham, Gerald
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Blair, Tony
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Blunkett, David
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Boateng, Paul
Kennedy, Charles


Bradley, Keith
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Kirkwood, Archy


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Lambie, David


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Lamond, James


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Leighton, Ron


Buckley, George J.
Lewis, Terry


Caborn, Richard
Litherland, Robert


Callaghan, Jim
Livingstone, Ken


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Loyden, Eddie


Canavan, Dennis
McAllion, John


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
McCartney, Ian


Carr, Michael
Macdonald, Calum A.


Cartwright, John
McFall, John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Clelland, David
McKelvey, William


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McLeish, Henry


Cohen, Harry
McMaster, Gordon


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
McWilliam, John


Corbett, Robin
Madden, Max


Cryer, Bob
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cummings, John
Marek, Dr John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cunningham, Dr John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Martlew, Eric


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Maxton, John


Dewar, Donald
Meacher, Michael


Dixon, Don
Meale, Alan


Dobson, Frank
Michael, Alun


Doran, Frank
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Douglas, Dick
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Morgan, Rhodri


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Morley, Elliot


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Eastham, Ken
Mowlam, Marjorie


Edwards, Huw
Mullin, Chris


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Murphy, Paul


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Nellist, Dave


Fatchett, Derek
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
O'Brien, William


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
O'Hara, Edward


Flynn, Paul
O'Neill, Martin


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Foster, Derek
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Foulkes, George
Parry, Robert


Fyfe, Maria
Patchett, Terry


Galbraith, Sam
Pendry, Tom


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Pike, Peter L.


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Prescott, John


Golding, Mrs Llin
Primarolo, Dawn


Gordon, Mildred
Quin, Ms Joyce


Gould, Bryan
Radice, Giles


Graham, Thomas
Randall, Stuart


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Redmond, Martin


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Reid, Dr John


Grocott, Bruce
Richardson, Jo


Hain, Peter
Rooker, Jeff


Hardy, Peter
Rooney, Terence


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Haynes, Frank
Rowlands, Ted


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Sedgemore, Brian


Henderson, Doug
Sheerman, Barry


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter






Skinner, Dennis
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Wigley, Dafydd


Soley, Clive
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Steinberg, Gerry
Wilson, Brian


Stott, Roger
Winnick, David


Straw, Jack
Worthington, Tony


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis



Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Turner, Dennis
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Mr. Thomas McAvoy.


Wareing, Robert N.



NOES


Adley, Robert
Devlin, Tim


Aitken, Jonathan
Dickens, Geoffrey


Alexander, Richard
Dicks, Terry


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dorrell, Stephen


Allason, Rupert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Amess, David
Dover, Den


Amos, Alan
Dunn, Bob


Arbuthnot, James
Durant, Sir Anthony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dykes, Hugh


Ashby, David
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Atkins, Robert
Evennett, David


Atkinson, David
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fallon, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Favell, Tony


Bellingham, Henry
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fishburn, John Dudley


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fookes, Dame Janet


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Forman, Nigel


Body, Sir Richard
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Franks, Cecil


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Freeman, Roger


Boswell, Tim
French, Douglas


Bottomley, Peter
Fry, Peter


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gale, Roger


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Gardiner, Sir George


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gill, Christopher


Bowis, John
Goodlad, Alastair


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Brazier, Julian
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bright, Graham
Gregory, Conal


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Grist, Ian


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Ground, Patrick


Buck, Sir Antony
Hague, William


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butler, Chris
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Butterfill, John
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Harris, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carrington, Matthew
Hayes, Jerry


Cash, William
Hayward, Robert


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Chapman, Sydney
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Chope, Christopher
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Churchill, Mr
Hill, James


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Hind, Kenneth


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Holt, Richard


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Hordern, Sir Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Colvin, Michael
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Couchman, James
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hunt, Rt Hon David


Curry, David
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Hunter, Andrew


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Day, Stephen
Irvine, Michael





Irving, Sir Charles
Powell, William (Corby)


Jack, Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Janman, Tim
Rathbone, Tim


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Redwood, John


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rhodes James, Robert


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Riddick, Graham


Key, Robert
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Kilfedder, James
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Roe, Mrs Marion


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rost, Peter


Knapman, Roger
Rowe, Andrew


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Knox, David
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Sayeed, Jonathan


Latham, Michael
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shelton, Sir William


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shersby, Michael


Lightbown, David
Sims, Roger


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Squire, Robin


McCrindle, Sir Robert
Stanbrook, Ivor


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Steen, Anthony


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stevens, Lewis


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Madel, David
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Malins, Humfrey
Sumberg, David


Mans, Keith
Summerson, Hugo


Maples, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marland, Paul
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Marlow, Tony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Thorne, Neil


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thornton, Malcolm


Maude, Hon Francis
Thurnham, Peter


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tracey, Richard


Mills, Iain
Tredinnick, David


Mitchell, Sir David
Trotter, Neville


Moate, Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian


Monro, Sir Hector
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Viggers, Peter


Moore, Rt Hon John
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Morrison, Sir Charles
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Walters, Sir Dennis


Moss, Malcolm
Ward, John


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Watts, John


Nelson, Anthony
Wells, Bowen


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wheeler, Sir John


Nicholls, Patrick
Whitney, Ray


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Widdecombe, Ann


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wiggin, Jerry


Page, Richard
Wilshire, David


Paice, James
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Wolfson, Mark


Patnick, Irvine
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Patten, Rt Hon John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey



Pawsey, James
Tellers for the Noes:


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Mr. Tim Wood and


Porter, David (Waveney)
Mr. John M. Taylor.


Portillo, Michael

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 1, line 9, leave out from 'shall' to end and insert
'have no effect in respect of any authority to which it would otherwise be applicable where the amount calculated by in relation to the year concerned under section 95(4) of that Act


or the aggregate amount of precepts issued by it for the year (as the case may be) is greater than the total amount in respect of that authority calculable from its Standing Spending Assessment'.
The amendment refers to the capping of local authorities that have budgets of less than £15 million and who spend below their standard spending assessment. Recently the Minister assured me that he had no intention of capping any authority that spends below its SSA. If we can rely on that assurance, there is little difference between us on the amendment, as it aims to protect from capping those authorities that spend below their budget and below their SSA.
The Rates Act 1984 provided that no authority that spent below its grant-related expenditure assessment—GREA—would be capped. Poll tax capping is carried out under the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and no corresponding protection is afforded to those authorities that spend below their SSA. The protection previously given to authorities that spent below their GREA has not been offered to authorities that spend below their SSA.
Small authorities risk being capped even if they spend below their SSA, especially the crude SSA given to shire districts, which is calculated on the basis of the population and the mixed bag of services provided. The SSA, as it applies now, is a means of grant distribution, but it is an inaccurate criterion by which to assess the efficiency of the authorities. That inaccuracy is a special problem for local authorities with small budgets which are not given a specific SSA to cover a wide range of services such as allotments, cemeteries and street cleaning. Smaller authorities have a problem in trying to meet the requirements of the SSA set by the Secretary of State.
I speak from experience, because I served for 21 years on an urban district authority before the local government reorganisation of 1974. That district authority was similar in size and population to many of the district councils to which the amendment is addressed. Urban district councils undertook similar functions to those now organised under the Association of district councils. In those days there was no call for capping or any of the severe restrictions that the Government are now imposing on small authorities.
In the old days, rates were assessed on the services required and the electorate were called upon to pay those rates. The Government provided grants, as they do today, and those grants were assessed according to the needs and resources of the local authorities. There was no cause to cap any local authority. The electorate decided whether it was satisfied with the efficiency and work of its local authority. If people were not satisfied and did not appreciate the work done they could change the membership of the council. That principle still applies today, when district councils provide services to their areas.
We want the Government to preclude from capping those authorities that spend below £15 million and keep below their SSA. I am prepared to allow the Minister to intervene so that he can assure me that the amendment is acceptable. If so, there is no need to pursue the issue further. Perhaps the Minister can give me that assurance now. The Minister seems not to want to give that assurance. I should therefore like to ask what Ministers intend to do about the principle of capping in general in

1992. The criteria likely to be announced later this year will have a significant effect on the application of capping to local authorities.
Will the Government undertake not to cap any authority spending below its SSA? I know that the Minister has given me an assurance on that, but we must bear in mind the fact that the Government are introducing the principle of year-on-year expenditure, which could have some effect on the capping procedure. Will the Government assure me that under no circumstances will local authorities that spend below £15 million or which do not exceed their SSAs—set by the Government—be capped?
Will the Minister clarify how far down the expenditure scale of local authorities the Government are prepared to go? I referred earlier to the smaller urban district authorities that were in being before the reorganisation of 1974. Many of them are now town councils with certain functions in line with those of the former parish councils. They, too, have budgets. What are the Government's intentions towards those budgets? May I take it that they will not be included in any capping procedure that the Government may apply?
I remind the Minister that, a few days ago when we were discussing local government in a Statutory Instrument Committee, he advised the Committee of his passion and love for local government—emotions which I hope will come to the fore today. If the Minister is sincere he will support this amendment because it protects smaller authorities from the capping rule that the Government want to extend right down to smaller local authorities.
The Government argue that stronger capping powers are necessary to protect charge payers from excessive spending by local authorities. The Secretary of State said as much when we discussed the extended powers that the Government want to take. The Association of District Councils, which covers these smaller authorities, contends that capping powers are wholly unnecessary and that in practice capping makes true local accountability for local authorities' spending decisions impossible. Authorities with small populations and small budgets cannot be made accountable through the ballot box under capping of the nature proposed by the Government.
The ADC asks vice-presidents—there are quite a few of them among Conservative Members—to oppose the proposals in the Bill under which the Government seek powers to cap small authorities. Hon. Members should take the ADC's request seriously.
5.15 pm
I remind the House that the Secretary of State for the Environment already has powers to cap authorities whose spending or whose increases in spending he considers excessive. Those powers are contained in part VII of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. However, the provisions of that Act also ensure that authorities whose spending is below £35 million, as the Secretary of State may specify, are not subject to the possibility of capping.
When we discussed this matter in the Committee that considered the 1988 Act, it was established that, if a council had a budget of only £15 million, capping would not take place. Indeed, the ceiling was set more than twice as high—the Secretary of State of the time said that he would reflect seriously before capping local authorities with budgets of below £35 million. If the Secretary of State's promises were sincere and if the speeches of


Members who served on the Committee in 1988 were sincere, why are we here again tonight defending local government against the capping of budgets below £15 million? The limit below which charge capping should not apply was originally introduced in recognition of the fact that authorities spending below that level did not contribute significantly to spending beyond the Government's targets for local government. That was agreed in Committee in 1988, when the Minister felt that there was no cause to cap authorities with budgets below £15 million—or even as high as £35 million.
Why the need to reverse the decision taken in 1988?

Mr. Tony Marlow: The hon. Gentleman has stated that the Government are concerned about the total level of local authority expenditure—and they certainly are. Does the Labour party have a view on whether total spending by local authorities should be controlled—

The Chairman: Order. That will have to wait for another debate; it is not in order on this one.

Mr. Marlow: With respect, Mr. Walker, we are talking about charge capping—

The Chairman: Order. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman do me the courtesy of reading the amendment and then reflecting on whether he has grounds for his intervention.

Mr. O'Brien: I was making the point that the Government are going against the spirit of the 1988 Act with regard to smaller local authorities, and I should like to know why. The statement of excessiveness is largely related to a comparison of actual spending with the Government's SSA. That is why we include that in the amendment. The SSAs are made on a national formula which, as Ministers accepted in Committee in 1988, cannot be sufficiently finely tuned to reflect the spending needs of low-spending authorities. Therefore, we want to know why the Government want to change the spirit of the 1988 Act. I hope that the Minister will say why local authorities whose budgets are below £15 million should be caught in the capping process.
I have asked the Minister to clarify how far down the scale the Government intend to go with capping powers. Is there a cut-off point? Is there a limit to how far the Government are prepared to go? Town and parish councils with a budget below £ 15 million need to know why they will be caught in the capping net. There is nothing in the legislation that says where that cut-off point will be.
Many local authorities will have difficulty meeting the requirements of the Government and the guidelines set down by the Department of the Environment, because of the lower spending base that could operate if the SSAs are not set in line with the needs of the local authorities. That is more important to local authorities whose spending powers are below £15 million, because they have statutory responsibilities and obligations. Low-spending authorities could have difficulty meeting those commitments if we are not prepared to give some guidance, assurance and protection to the local authorities.
In the preparation of the 1988 Act, the Government acknowledged the problems that I have described and that is why they introduced the £15 million lower limit for charge capping. They also accepted that the limit may need increasing and that is why we have the £35 million ceiling.

That point was accepted by the House, which granted the Secretary of State the power to more than double the limit set by local authorities before charge capping applied.
Therefore, the amendment is important if we are to treat fairly district councils with low expenditure. The range of limits that will be set by the application of the Bill to smaller local authorities could have some significance to the services provided by those authorities. I hope that the Minister will address the points that I have made and answer my questions, so that we can see what is in the Government's mind.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Clause 1 ploughs on with the poll tax. Despite everything that has happened recently—the changes in the Conservative party and the local election results—we are still going down the same path. If there is any reason to distrust the new face of the Government, it is this measure.
The amendment deals with SSAs, and many district councils will have difficulty in moving below the SSA levels. Districts in shire counties are particularly disadvantaged under the SSAs compared even with shire counties and metropolitan districts. However, I grant that the latter have been badly hit by the poll tax legislation.
The booklet on the background and underlying methodology of the SSA published in 1990 by the Department of the Environment's local government finance policy directorate sets out the criteria under which the SSA operates. It points out that SSAs are simpler than grant-related expenditure assessments, because they have reduced the categories of assessment from 63 to 13.
For districts in shire areas, that number of categories is even more dramatically reduced. The 13 categories include education, personal social services, police, fire and civil defence, highway maintenance and so on, and tend to include all other services and capital financing in two general catch-all categories. That concerns the district authorities. If there is something wrong with those limited areas of assessment, the district authorities are placed in considerable difficulty.
As far as those difficulties affect the counties, they are to some extent overcome by the SSA provision in areas that are mentioned. The counties can operate their accounts in such a way that they get by, although they are getting by badly.
Therefore, the anomalies in the SSAs hit district authorities worse than other authorities, especially in shire areas. The problem of the SSA structure can be seen in the district authority that covers most of my constituency in north-east Derbyshire. Will the precepts issued by the parish councils which are outside district control be excluded from the assessment? If not, we are in even greater difficulties.
North-East Derbyshire has a budget this year of £7·3 million, which is £1·5 million, or 27 per cent., in excess of the Government's SSA. Under the Government's chop logic, its council must be one of the most profligate in England. That is nonsense. Independent judgments and the reports of the Audit Commission show it to be an efficient and well-run local authority. By putting services out to tender, it operates in the same way as other authorities, and it also has an efficient and well-run direct labour force.
However, North-East Derbyshire comes bottom of any league table, and it is starved of grants because of the SSA formula. Its SSA per poll tax payer is the lowest of 26


comparable authorities identified by the Audit Commission. It has an SSA of £60·30 per head, which is nearly half that enjoyed by Derby, at £150·37—yet that authority is badly treated under the SSA arrangements. A table that formed part of a parliamentary answer that I received on 5 December 1990 showed that Derby was in the bottom half of the league table of revenue support grant in respect of SSA estimates. Derby is in a terrible situation, yet North-East Derbyshire is considerably worse off, receiving nearly half the amount that Derby does per charge payer.
5.30 pm
In the table to which I referred, North-East Derbyshire was placed 346 out of 366 for English authorities. Worse still, only one council has a lower SSA per poll tax payer, and that is East Dorset. I know that someone has to finish bottom of any league table, and that does not necessarily tell against the Government's position. However, it indicates that the Government think that North-East Derbyshire, in common with East Dorset, is a kind of ideal authority that can manage on almost no grant, and by raising only a limited amount of funding.
However, East Dorset's difference from North-East Derbyshire is emphasised by its political control. East Dorset is represented by the hon. Members for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), with a Conservative majority of 22,000, and for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker), with a majority of more than 12,000—whereas North-East Derbyshire is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and myself. It is a traditionally solid Labour area, and one that has been seriously affected by the decline in the railways and mining, and, in neighbouring Rotherham, in the steel industry.
It may be that East Dorset does not need much grant—though the hon. Member for Christchurch might argue otherwise. But North-East Derbyshire does, and in the absence of that revenue, the only way that it can maintain its services—many of which are statutory—is by increasing its poll tax. It then places itself at risk of being capped according to the provisions of the Bill.
Why does North-East Derbyshire have such a small SSA and grant per taxpayer? It can only be because the formula is crazy, does not fit North-East Derbyshire's needs, and has insufficient flexibility to take account of the area's characteristics.
After allowing for debt charges, interest receipts, and so on, district authorities in shire areas must consider three main criteria in calculating their SSA. Those characteristics, and the weightings that are applied to them, crucify authorities such as North-East Derbyshire and others that have been criticised by Members of the Government Front Bench, such as Derwentshire.
One consideration is population and the net outflow during the day. North-East Derbyshire loses a considerable number of its population during the day to Sheffield, Chesterfield and pits in Chesterfield and Bolsover. Other towns gain from overnight visitors, particularly in seaside areas, but nothing like that occurs in North-East Derbyshire. That movement out of North-East Derbyshire must have an adverse effect on its weightings.
Ward density and ward sparsity is another consideration. A thinly populated area may qualify for extra grant, as may a densely populated one. The logic of that is

reflected in services such as refuse collection and dispersal, when vehicles may either be clogged up in the traffic or have to travel great distances. However, North-East Derbyshire, together with Amber Valley, receives less grant than any comparable authority—£14 per poll tax payer, compared with £30 for Darlington.
North-East Derbyshire takes the form of a large C-shape surrounding Chesterfield. It is an intricate mixture of densely populated and sparsely populated areas, which together present problems of the kind that I mentioned—yet it fails to qualify under the appropriate criteria. It loses out considerably because it does not match up to the ward figures, and so receives a combined amount less than that which almost any other area receives.
If North-East Derbyshire is an ideal authority, its shape must also be ideal. However, if one could stretch out its C-shape in some way, it would be 30 miles long and in many places three miles wide. Its district council offices are in Chesterfield, so it is not spread out: it is like the hub of a bicycle wheel from which spokes radiate. People have to move in and out of that area continually to use the services that it provides. The SSA arrangements do not take account of that.
The third set of social characteristics is represented by the social index, which deals with such matters as the number of houses with no bath or WC, the number of lone-parent families and the number of households in which there is more than one person inhabiting a room. In a host of cases North-East Derbyshire fails to qualify for help, because it is divided into two areas that follow two entirely different patterns. The east is solidly working class, while the west is middle class—although there are, of course, pockets of cross-class occupation.
North-East Derbyshire, then, is sorely penalised in each of those three respects. For as long as we continue to experience the absurdities of the poll-tax regime, we shall need a formula that takes such problems into account. Unless parish moneys were excluded, it would be difficult for North-East Derbyshire to feature on the list of authorities that fall below SSA levels; but it should be possible for district authorities to do so.
Such matters have already been discussed when deputations from North-East Derbyshire have met the Minister, but he has just sent me a letter saying that there is to be no argument about this issue. I have therefore had no option but to raise the matter in the House. I hope, however, that there will be a further deputation, because the lessons of North-East Derbyshire have wider applications. I am sure that many other hon. Members could talk about the effect of SSAs on the areas that they represent.
Like many other district authorities, North-East Derbyshire is obliged to provide a range of statutory services, and it has little room for cuts. If it is operating not profligately but efficiently, in Audit Commission terms, it will have no leeway after spending the necessary amounts on electoral registration, refuse collection, environmental health services, street cleaning, town and country planning, poll tax rebates and the administration of the poll tax system.
If it is to make cuts, therefore, the authority must cut other services. Spending on other services accounts for £2·5 million. If its expenditure proves to be £1·5 million above SSA, North-East Derbyshire will be expected to destroy hosts of services. It will be forced to slash its contributions to the county's concessionary fares policy


—thus either ending or severely damaging its operation—and to trading services, cemeteries and crematoria, swimming pools, sports centres, parks and open spaces. Retaining the facilities themselves would involve fantastic loan charges.
If North-East Derbyshire is to live within the limits dictated by what the Government consider that its means should be, it will have to cut many services by 50 per cent. or more. That is idiotic. North-East Derbyshire is no island; it is by no means unique. It is similar to many other authorities throughout the country, many of them Labour. The SSA formula has been manipulated to the disadvantage of North-East Derbyshire.
5.45 pm
According to the booklet that I mentioned earlier, the SSA procedure was intended to be simple and easily understood; the principle of accountability was intended to operate. If I had had more time, I would have read out one of the sections in the booklet, which describes the structure and operation of the system—although no one, including me, would have understood.
The booklet has a lot to say about judgmental considerations. It even applies such considerations to sparsity of population. Those "judgmental considerations", however, are sheer guesswork, and in many of the Government's calculations the guesswork has gone wrong. It is time that the Government started to pull back, instead of continuing to plough the same furrow and producing more and more unjust poll tax legislation.

Mr. Michael Latham: I suspect that the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), who moved the amendment, did not want to take yes for an answer. I expect my hon. Friend the Minister to have little difficulty in accepting the spirit, if not the wording., of this amendment: I cannot believe that the Government intend to cap an authority that does not exceed its SSA.

Mr. O'Brien: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Latham: I will, although I think that it is up to my hon. Friend the Minister to answer.

Mr. O'Brien: I told the Minister at the beginning of my speech that, if he agreed with the content of the amendment, I would leave it at that. He declined to accept my invitation, so I must pursue the matter.

Mr. Latham: I am sorry if I appeared to criticise the hon. Gentleman; I certainly did not intend to do so. My hon. Friend, however, will make his own speech, and will want to make his own points rather than simply intervening in the hon. Gentleman's speech. Indeed, he is now indicating as much.
Following what was said by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), let me make it clear that for me this is not a party political matter. My constituency contains three local authorities, none of them Labour: some councillors are Independent, some SLD, and most—I am glad to say—Conservative.
Nevertheless, I am slightly worried about the position of Rutland district council—and, as my hon. Friend the Minister knows, so is the council. I do not think that there will be any problem provided that the authority keeps within its SSA, as indeed, it has done ever since the introduction of the system. I fear, however, that in such a small authority a tiny amount of spending could be

enough to exceed the SSA. [Interruption.] I do not know why Opposition Members are so excited about that; I should have thought that it was obvious.
I know that my hon. Friend received a deputation of small local authorities the other day. I believe that it was led by Beverley borough council, with which Rutland has been associated. The deputation presented my hon. Friend with a strong case, in writing, which I know he is taking seriously. I am sure that he will continue to do so when drawing up the SSA formula for the coming year.
I am happy to accept the Government's assurance. I appreciate that they do not want any local authority to exceed its SSA, thus imposing a burden on its charge payers. Although in principle I regret the introduction of Bills of this nature—and I believe that the Government do as well—I recognise that there may be strong reasons for it. I merely ask my hon. Friend for an assurance that he is thinking carefully about the case put to him by Beverley, Rutland and other small district councils, and that he will respond constructively.

Mr. Allen McKay: I assure the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) that of course the Minister will listen; of course he will consider his case. But after all that the answer will be that he gets nothing. It is as simple as that.
The Bill represents a further erosion of democracy and local government. To use a fishing analogy, the Government are closing the mesh on their nets. They have caught the whale and the shark; now they are after the minnow. They have carried on in that way since 1979 and now they are turning on the small authorities simply because of their ideological preference for central Government as against local government. They will not save much money, but it is the principle of the thing that is important. They are after the small authorities.
Ministers may say that, if the small authorities are getting away with it, the large authorities will follow their example. The Government are not exactly running scared—they have not been scared of anything yet, because they have dismissed every logical argument ever put to them in their pursuit of the destruction of democracy in local government.
I shall use my own local authority as a marker. For generations, Barnsley council went about its business lawfully and supplied services, as many small authorities will have done. But then came charge capping.
We have never had a quarrel with central Government about what central Government should spend—differences, perhaps, but never a quarrel. It is for central Government to determine what grant local government receives. Our quarrel is not with that principle but with the idea that central Government should determine how a local authority can spend money on behalf of the electorate who voted it into power.
The Secretary of State and his Ministers argue that they are acting on behalf of the people, but they have never consulted the people on the subject. It is four years since they consulted the people, so they have no authority to say that they are acting on their behalf.
Small authorities, however, consult the people. My local authority consults the people year in, year out. Every year it consults the electorate for permission to spend the money it wants and to provide the services it wants.
What has happened to Barnsley will happen to the smaller authorities now, too. First, we lost a music centre


—36 musicians have been dismissed and one of the finest music centres in Britain has gone out of business. Secondly, only this week I found out that, as a result of the authority's having been capped, no further education is being offered to people in our school areas. Dancing classes, language classes and soft furnishing classes, all for aged people, have gone. One hundred and thirty-six elements of further education have had to go, purely because of poll tax capping. That is taking ideology to extremes.
What is being done is destroying the very things that local people wanted, that local government could supply, and that central Government will not supply. There is the ridiculous example of the Sheffield supertram. That was something that the Government wanted, but which under the spending criteria the authorities were unable to supply. Central Government gave money to local government to finance the supertram. The four authorities said, "Fine. We will act as your agent and organise the supertram." But then central Government said, "Wait a minute. If you spend the money that we give you, you will have to cut your services even further." So the supertram became a non-runner. Small authorities will soon come up against such problems, too.
All that we want from central Government is some common sense, rather than an ideological commitment to the pursuit of a vendetta against local authorities, large and small.
I know that the Minister of State has said that he will see representatives of the authorities concerned. I am sure that he will see them, but with all due respect to him—I would see him at any time, because I like discussing the situation with him, even though we disagree—it is the Secretary of State whom we wish to see. I had a letter telling me that the Secretary of State's diary was full—I should hope that it is full; otherwise, the right hon. Gentleman would not be doing his job. But I shall write back and say that, although we accept that his diary is full, we are willing to wait. The Government could give us the first available date—it could be a Saturday or a Sunday or any other day of the week. The Secretary of State should be able to find at least one hour of his time to consider and discuss the authorities' problems with their representatives.
For years we have been trying to get through to Ministers and Secretaries of State the concerns of local government. Of course, there are issues on which we differ and others on which we can agree, but we can never agree with the way in which central Government are treating local government and local democracy.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay), who, we would all agree, is one of the most reasonable men in the House. We listen to him with particular care and attention. But first I must return to the beginning of the debate and the opening speech of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien).
I reiterate what my hon. Friend the Minister of State said: we have no intention of capping local authorities that set budgets below their standard spending assessments. The hon. Member for Normanton said that I had a love and passion for local government. I plead guilty to that.

Perhaps it is because I want to make it work, but I shall return to that later. My love and passion do not extend quite as far as that of Alan Bleasdale in "GBH", which I am sure the hon. Gentleman enjoys watching as much as I do.
When rate capping was introduced, we made it clear that the exemption reflected the relatively low expenditure incurred by the authorities concerned, and hence its relatively small effect on total local government spending. At that time, we were determined to concentrate our efforts on the worst overspenders and we believed that the effect on local taxation of such district spending decisions would be small. The hon. Member for Normanton asked what had changed since. The answer is that time has moved on and some authorities with budgets below £15 million have greatly burdened their charge payers. This year there have been about 40 examples of authorities budgeting below £15 million overspending their SSAs by more than £26 per adult, which translates directly into an increase of £26 or more in the charge.

Mr. John Lee: My hon. Friend will appreciate that my local authority of Pendle could be affected by the measure and that it regards its SSA as unsatisfactory. I have made a number of representations to that effect to my hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues. Will my hon. Friend give detailed criteria for the factors that would influence his Department in deciding whether to cap a local authority such as Pendle? I fully understand if he would prefer to write to me rather than to reply immediately. Will he also consider visiting Pendle—perhaps during the recess?

Mr. Key: My hon. Friend makes a tempting offer. I may say that his untiring efforts have had a significant effect on the Government's thinking about local authority finance in the past year and more and I hope that that will be able to continue. I ask my hon. Friend to be patient until we make announcements about the next round of SSAs, at which point we shall be in a position to meet his local authority, if it so wishes, and to listen to its concerns about the SSA methodology and how it may be affected. But I suspect that with regard to this Bill the authority need have no fear. It is unlikely that a sensible and prudent local authority which is not spending above its SSA will be caught by the Bill.
6 pm
As I said, time has moved on. We are determined that the substantial extra sums that we are making available to local authorities from this year onwards should be used to keep charges down and not to boost spending further. We recognise changed circumstances and we have taken prompt action, in line with our duty to protect charge payers, to address the realities of the situation. The means of achieving our goals may have had to change because of the actions of some local authorities, but the goal remains the same—a local tax at acceptable levels.
The hon. Members for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) asked about parishes. The cost of providing parish services is included in the districts' SSAs, but parishes themselves fall outside the capping regime. However, as parish precepts do not form part of the calculation that authorities are required to make, under the terms of section 95 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, in setting their demand on the collection fund for the year, such precepts cannot,


under the terms of the statute, be considered by the Secretary of State in relation to his capping powers. Parish expenditure cannot, therefore, bring a district into capping. I am happy to be able to give hon. Members that assurance.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The Minister will recall that a few months ago I raised the question of parish councils and referred to Wentworth parish council in my constituency. I said that the Government had been remarkably remiss in not referring to the position of parishes and parish councils. At that point, the Minister intervened to say that he would be speaking to them at an early date. Does he realise that what he has just said will bring parish councils no great joy and will prolong the real anxiety felt by responsible parish councils—the vast majority are absolutely responsible, as I am sure the Minister will confirm? They will find his comments most unhelpful and not at all encouraging.

Mr. Key: I am delighted to be able to reassure the hon. Gentleman. Only yesterday, my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities met representatives of the National Association of Local Councils, who raised no particular difficulties in that respect. I ask the hon. Gentleman to read what I have said—and, indeed, what I am about to say as I have not quite finished my remarks about councils. I should add that I recall with pleasure my visit to his constituency and to Wentworth.

Mr. O'Brien: This is an important issue. Is the Minister saying that parish precepts will not influence the SSAs and capping levels of district councils? Can he confirm that precepts set by parishes will be held separately from the expenditure of district councils?

Mr. Key: Parishes are included within SSAs but, as I said, parish expenditure cannot bring a district into capping. The capping regime bites on the demand made by the district on the collection fund, regardless of the level of precept levied by parishes on the authority.

Mr. O'Brien: I repeat that this is an important matter. We are talking about district councils' expenditure. Are parish council precepts included in that. The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities is shaking his head, so presumably they are not included. If he is not, his head must have been shaken by the power.
I want to be clear that the precept for parish councils will not be included in district councils' total expenditure. Is that correct?

Mr. Key: I have already tried to explain the position, and I shall continue to try to do so. It has been argued that it is unfair to include parish expenditure in districts' SSAs but not in their budgets, as that treats authorities which have a large number of parishes in their area more favourably than those which do not. The Secretary of State recognised that, in very marginal cases, an authority might avoid designation through certain of its functions being performed by parishes, and that authorities might devolve functions to provide themselves with greater headroom against their SSA. I should point out that parish expenditure accounts for only a very small proportion of local authority spending, and the Secretary of State did not consider that the issues were likely to be of sufficient magnitude to justify any special provision.
The short answer, then, is that parish expenditure cannot bring a district into capping, and the capping regime bites on the demand made by the district on the collection fund regardless of the level of precept levied by the parishes on the authority.

Mr. O'Brien: I must press the Minister on this important point. We are talking not only about parishes in the non-metropolitan district areas. The arrangements must also presumably apply to parish and town councils in the metropolitan districts. The principle is exactly the same. Ryedale district council's SSA was £6·21 million. Do I take it that any parishes that precepted upon that council could not influence the level of SSA?

Mr. Key: The parishes precept not on the council but on the collection fund. In setting SSAs, district and parish spending are considered together, but capping bites only on the district's demand on the collection fund. That is the important point. I acknowledge that this is an important question and, if I discover that I have said anything that is not correct, I shall leap into print with a letter to the hon. Gentleman.
The amendment would maintain the exemption from capping of authorities in England and Wales setting budgets of £15 million or less for those authorities which set budgets above their standard spending assessments. It is difficult to understand the rationale behind it. That is why I could not help the Opposition by leaping to my feet at an early stage during the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Normanton to say that I agreed with the proposal.
Whatever the hon. Gentleman's precise intention in tabling the amendment, this is clearly another example of the way in which the Opposition have no compunction about exposing charge payers to the effects of overspending by local authorities. There will always be a temptation to spend upwards. Even small authorities with small budgets will be tempted to spend upwards, especially in view of the settlement announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his Budget last March. It is precisely the authorities that set their budgets over SSA that indulge in the kind of overspending that we seek powers to restrain. The vast majority of the small authorities are not included. Capping has worked to the extent that such authorities have trimmed their budgets accordingly. Only 86 of the 267 local authorities with budgets of under £15 million were spending over their SSAs. I believe that those authorities would not have sought to budget over their SSAs—and over £15 million—if they thought that capping was in prospect.
Come what may, authorities budgeting at or below SSA have nothing to fear from the provisions of the Bill. They are budgeting prudently and sensibly and their charge payers receive a fair deal. It is the other authorities—the authorities spending well above SSA—from which the charge payer needs protection. We are not talking about small sums. About 40 authorities set budgets which added £26 or more to the bills met by their charge payers. In some cases, the effect was very much more significant. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned a few examples on Second Reading, pointing out that Derwentside had cost its charge payers an additional £95, Harlow £83, Elmbridge £73 and Watford £56.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East spoke of the criteria for standard spending assessments. The


average increase in standard spending assessments for shire districts in 1991–92 is 28·3 per cent. The increase in total SSAs is 19·4 per cent. North-East Derbyshire's SSA increased 26·2 per cent., in line roughly with the SSAs for other Derbyshire districts.
Each year, we consult the local authority associations about standard spending assessments. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities believes that there is nothing new to be said or heard. When, just before Christmas, we announce our intended SSAs for the following year, we listen to delegations and to the views of Members of Parliament and councillors. It is interesting to note how many district councils are spending money on functions for which the counties are financed under the SSAs—and then districts wonder why we are slightly doubtful about their spending policies.

Mr. Bellotti: Will the Minister bear in mind the Audit Commission's family of local authorities, which takes into account 49 different factors? There is a vast difference in the SSAs of local authorities in the same families.

Mr. Key: That does not surprise me. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) can be reassured that we constantly consider the families of local authorities. It does not surprise me that there are great differences within the families on the indicators for SSAs. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East laughs, but statistically the methodology of SSAs is sophisticated. However, it is much simpler than the old grant-related expenditure assessment system. Sitting in the centre of the bicycle wheel, about which the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East told us, it is interesting that local authorities queue up to tell us that their figures are unfair and that all the authorities around them are overpaid. That is the nature of the beast, I fear.

Mr. Hardy: I shall not labour the point, but an element in the determination of standard spending assessments is the 1981 census. The Minister referred to his visit to my constituency—I am delighted that he enjoyed that and we should be pleased to see him again—but the devastation that he saw has occurred since the 1981 census. The economic condition of my area is based on that assessment rather than on the current position. That makes the SSA for the area quite absurd.

Mr. Key: I well recall that memorable day when I was able to announce Government support of more than £20 million for local authorities in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. How I should like to be able to repeat that on my visits to his constituency.
I am sure the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) is aware that another census has just been taken. Once the figures have been analysed and are available to us, it will make a substantial difference.
It is important to recognise that the Labour party has never suggested that it will replace the system of SSAs. Will it replace that system?

Mr. O'Brien: Yes.

Mr. Key: If the Labour party is committed to replacing SSAs with a grant mechanism, it should tell us and, more important, local authorities exactly what it has in mind, because there has been a deafening silence so far.

Mr. O'Brien: If the Minister reads Hansard, he will find that on Second Reading my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) explained our policy no fewer than three times. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not read Hansard, which clearly shows all the options.

Mr. Key: Our SSA reports are copious—I recall that there are almost 100 pages—but I do not think the detail given in the speech of the hon. Member for Dagenham was quite as clear as that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) mentioned Rutland authority. I acknowledge the contribution that it, Beverley and several other small authorities have made in their serious critique of the methodology of SSAs as they affect small rural authorities. I enjoyed my discussion with officers and councillors from those authorities and I assure my hon. Friend that we are carefully considering the substantial work that was done. I look forward to the results of that work, to which I shall respond in due course. I have much enthusiasm for the methodology of SSAs; I am never sure why, but I find it compelling. I should be sorry if a Labour Government did away with them.
The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone mentioned the Sheffield supertram. As he knows, we are holding discussions on that and more meetings are planned. I look forward to resolution of the problems. As discussions are being held, it would be unwise for me to say more tonight.
There is no question of the destruction of democracy. I am not scared about that, but if I am scared about anything it is about parts of our country where local democracy is not thriving. I sometimes worry about the future of local democracy.

Mr. Blunkett: I worry all the time.

Mr. Key: The hon. Member for Brightside worries all the time. I hope that he does not, because he is a cheerful fellow; I hate to think of him worrying all the time.
There is a problem in some of our great cities, but it should not be addressed on a party political basis, because it is a problem of democracy. Opposition Members may agree that when one visits a city area one increasingly meets people who say that they are the real representatives of the community. They say, "Don't listen to him; I really know what the people think." There is much diversity among the people who queue up to say that they represent communities, but what they have in common is that most of them are not elected councillors. That is a real problem for democracy.
The amendment would not only reduce but, in practice, eliminate the purpose of the provisions of clause 1. Once again, that shows that the Opposition are more interested in pandering to the interests of their friends in local government than in protecting charge payers, and I call on the Committee to reject the amendment.

Mr. O'Brien: The purpose of the amendment is to prevent authorities that spend less than £15 million and below their SSAs from being capped. The Minister assured us that the Government do not intend to cap such authorities, but we have often heard that from Ministers in Committee. Local authorities, especially Rutland, that spend 10p, 15p or 20p per week too much per charge payer


may be capped. It is now getting so ridiculous that there must be some protection for local authorities, which is why we have tabled the amendment.
The Minister said that there would be a precept on the collection fund with regard to parish and town councils. I remind Conservative Members that the same was said about the police, about the fire service and about public transport, but they are all subject to capping. If we are to have assurances that there will be no further approach to capping for parish and town councils, it is imperative that the amendment is accepted to protect authorities such as Rutland. A very small increase in expenditure could put such authorities into the capping criteria. That is very dangerous for local authorities and for democracy within those authorities.

Mr. Latham: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he must not take that line. He has tabled an amendment and asked for an assurance, which he has been given. He should withdraw the amendment.

Mr. O'Brien: We have had so many assurances. We referred to those given during the debate on the Local Government Finance Act 1988, which are being overturned tonight. Therefore, the assurance that the Minister is now giving us does not impress us one bit. If Conservative Members are interested in their local authorities and want to protect them, they must support the amendment. Because we are concerned about the future and the protection of local authorities, we will press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 209, Noes 286.

Division No. 163]
[6.20 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cartwright, John


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Allen, Graham
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Alton, David
Clelland, David


Anderson, Donald
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cohen, Harry


Armstrong, Hilary
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Corbett, Robin


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cryer, Bob


Ashton, Joe
Cummings, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Cunningham, Dr John


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Barron, Kevin
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Battle, John
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)


Beckett, Margaret
Dewar, Donald


Beith, A. J.
Dixon, Don


Bell, Stuart
Doran, Frank


Bellotti, David
Douglas, Dick


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Benton, Joseph
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bermingham, Gerald
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Blair, Tony
Edwards, Huw


Blunkett, David
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Boateng, Paul
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Bradley, Keith
Fatchett, Derek


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Faulds, Andrew


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Flynn, Paul


Buckley, George J.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Caborn, Richard
Foster, Derek


Callaghan, Jim
Foulkes, George


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fraser, John


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Fyfe, Maria


Canavan, Dennis
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Carr, Michael
Godman, Dr Norman A.





Golding, Mrs Llin
Mowlam, Marjorie


Gordon, Mildred
Mullin, Chris


Gould, Bryan
Murphy, Paul


Graham, Thomas
Nellist, Dave


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
O'Brien, William


Grocott, Bruce
O'Hara, Edward


Hain, Peter
O'Neill, Martin


Hardy, Peter
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Harman, Ms Harriet
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Parry, Robert


Haynes, Frank
Patchett, Terry


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Pendry, Tom


Henderson, Doug
Pike, Peter L.


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Prescott, John


Home Robertson, John
Primarolo, Dawn


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Radice, Giles


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Randall, Stuart


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Redmond, Martin


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Reid, Dr John


Illsley, Eric
Richardson, Jo


Janner, Greville
Rooker, Jeff


Johnston, Sir Russell
Rooney, Terence


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Ruddock, Joan


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Salmond, Alex


Kennedy, Charles
Sedgemore, Brian


Kirkwood, Archy
Sheerman, Barry


Lambie, David
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lamond, James
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Leadbitter, Ted
Skinner, Dennis


Leighton, Ron
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Lewis, Terry
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Litherland, Robert
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Livingstone, Ken
Soley, Clive


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Spearing, Nigel


Loyden, Eddie
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McAllion, John
Steinberg, Gerry


McAvoy, Thomas
Stott, Roger


McCartney, Ian
Straw, Jack


Macdonald, Calum A.
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McFall, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McKelvey, William
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


McLeish, Henry
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


McMaster, Gordon
Turner, Dennis


McWilliam, John
Wallace, James


Madden, Max
Walley, Joan


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Marek, Dr John
Wareing, Robert N.


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Martlew, Eric
Wigley, Dafydd


Maxton, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Meacher, Michael
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Meale, Alan
Wilson, Brian


Michael, Alun
Winnick, David


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Worthington, Tony


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)



Moonie, Dr Lewis
Tellers for the Ayes:


Morgan, Rhodri
Mr. Allen McKay and


Morley, Elliot
Mr. Ken Eastham


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)



NOES


Adley, Robert
Arnold, Sir Thomas


Aitken, Jonathan
Ashby, David


Alexander, Richard
Aspinwall, Jack


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Atkins, Robert


Allason, Rupert
Atkinson, David


Amess, David
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Amos, Alan
Baldry, Tony


Arbuthnot, James
Batiste, Spencer


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bellingham, Henry






Bendall, Vivian
Gorst, John


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Benyon, W.
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gregory, Conal


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Grist, Ian


Body, Sir Richard
Ground, Patrick


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Grylls, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Boswell, Tim
Hague, William


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bowis, John
Hannam, John


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Brazier, Julian
Harris, David


Bright, Graham
Haselhurst, Alan


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hawkins, Christopher


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hayes, Jerry


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hayward, Robert


Buck, Sir Antony
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Burns, Simon
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Burt, Alistair
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Butler, Chris
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Butterfill, John
Hill, James


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hind, Kenneth


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Holt, Richard


Carrington, Matthew
Hordern, Sir Peter


Cash, William
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Chapman, Sydney
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Chope, Christopher
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Churchill, Mr
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Hunter, Andrew


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Irvine, Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Irving, Sir Charles


Colvin, Michael
Jack, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Jackson, Robert


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Janman, Tim


Cope, Rt Hon John
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Couchman, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cran, James
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Curry, David
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Key, Robert


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Kilfedder, James


Day, Stephen
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Devlin, Tim
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dicks, Terry
Knapman, Roger


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dunn, Bob
Knowles, Michael


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knox, David


Eggar, Tim
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Latham, Michael


Evennett, David
Lawrence, Ivan


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fallon, Michael
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Favell, Tony
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lightbown, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Lord, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
McCrindle, Sir Robert


Franks, Cecil
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Freeman, Roger
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


French, Douglas
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Fry, Peter
Maclean, David


Gale, Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Gardiner, Sir George
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gill, Christopher
Madel, David


Goodlad, Alastair
Malins, Humfrey


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mans, Keith


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Maples, John





Marland, Paul
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Marlow, Tony
Shersby, Michael


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sims, Roger


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maude, Hon Francis
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Squire, Robin


Mills, Iain
Stanbrook, Ivor


Miscampbell, Norman
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Steen, Anthony


Moate, Roger
Stern, Michael


Monro, Sir Hector
Stevens, Lewis


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Sumberg, David


Moss, Malcolm
Summerson, Hugo


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Nelson, Anthony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thorne, Neil


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thornton, Malcolm


Page, Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Paice, James
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Patnick, Irvine
Tracey, Richard


Patten, Rt Hon John
Tredinnick, David


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Trotter, Neville


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Twinn, Dr Ian


Porter, David (Waveney)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Portillo, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Powell, William (Corby)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Waldegrave. Rt Hon William


Rathbone, Tim
Walden, George


Redwood, John
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Rhodes James, Robert
Walters, Sir Dennis


Riddick, Graham
Ward, John


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)
Watts, John


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wells, Bowen


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wheeler, Sir John


Rost, Peter
Whitney, Ray


Rowe, Andrew
Widdecombe, Ann


Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela
Wiggin, Jerry


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wilshire, David


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wolfson, Mark


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Shaw, David (Dover)



Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Tellers for the Noes:


Shelton, Sir William
Mr. John M Taylor and


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Mr. Timothy Wood.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Mr. Blunkett: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 1, line 9, at end insert
'after the making of an Order under subsection (4) below'.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Paul Dean): With this, it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 18, in page 1, line 10, after 'above', insert
'and after the making of an Order under subsection (4) below'.
No. 21, in page 1, line 19, at end insert
`(4) the Secretary of State may make an Order to give effect to the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) above after he has laid before Parliament a statement specifying that the calculation of the amount of £15 million referred to in section 101(1) of the 1988 Act does not in respect of any authority include any revenue expenditure arising in connection with a project all or part of whose capital cost is funded by the European Community.'.

Mr. Blunkett: I want to take up the issues that we left at the end of our debate on the previous group of amendments which relate to the effect that expenditure has on the capping criteria, its relationship to the SSA and the question of money that is returned to us from the European Community in the form of grants and allocations for specific projects.
At the end of our previous debate, there were some interesting exchanges between the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) about the way in which the collection fund, the draw-down and precepting related to capping. We look forward to the Minister's reply with some interest because the Opposition and local authority treasurers believe strongly that precepting on the collection fund has an effect on the amount that the major collecting authority can draw down without itself being subject to capping.
That also relates to the level of expenditure that is counted by the main spending authority before it runs into difficulties with the Government's criteria. There is no better example of that than the farce that relates to the expenditure of moneys that have been returned to us from the Commission in Brussels. I use the words "returned to us", because, as hon. Members know, the amount that we contribute varies from time to time. It will vary in the coming year by doubling to more than £2 billion.
Some of that money is due back to local authorities in a variety of schemes, such as RECHAR. As hon. Members know, authorities spending that money immediately find themselves disqualified by the Government from taking up other forms of national aid or capital expenditure permissions to enable them to continue their normal programmes on capital. The system works in a ridiculous way. Money from Europe, whether RECHAR or a range of other schemes—RECHAR is a particular example because it was never intended to be counted as part of the capital programme—results in authorities having to cut their capital programme to be able to accept resources that have been allocated from Europe. Their basic credit approvals are not increased—in other words, they are not shown to be additional in terms of the extra help—so local authorities have to make cuts. That has always applied under the present Government. The additionality rules have been ridiculed because of their impact and because this country has a lower level of expenditure on capital than our European Community partners have. They do not apply the same additionality rules.
However, as a result of capping, revenue expenditure is treated in the same way, so that when capital allocations are made by the European Community the revenue that backs it up to provide for the debt charges and, in some cases, the running costs of projects approved for EC aid is counted for capping purposes. The authority is forced to cut its normal mainstream budget in order to accept our money back from our European partners. A dafter position one could never expect to come across. Without capping, the position would not arise. [Interruption]
I hear that the Whip is doing his bit again going round the houses drawing up his little lists. Perhaps he would draw up the list of authorities that have been denied help by the rules that currently apply. Perhaps he would whip in some of his colleagues so that they can hear about the way in which their people—not their local authorities—are affected. [Interruption.] I welcome the Secretary of State to the Chamber to hear about the absurdity of inner-city

areas—which he offers to help through the city challenge scheme—being unable to take up European help as a result of his capping proposals.
The urban programme included a disregard in respect of capping. Our amendment seeks to extend a disregard for capping purposes to all similar resources from Europe. The disregard should apply equally to all other sources, including central Government. In the debate on the previous group of amendments we were discussing precepts, outside draw-downs on collection funds and amounts paid to an authority from elsewhere but which nevertheless count for year-on-year increases in expenditure. Those amounts should be set aside for capping purposes. If not, every amount that is allocated, for example for critical training programmes, from European moneys will be counted for year-on-year expenditure by local authorities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) described the position on the scheme for the South Yorkshire supertram rapid transit system. Even though central Government have agreed to aid the scheme through the Department of Transport, the scheme falls foul of the rules. The local authorities, which are part of the passenger transport authority, are subject to the capping criteria in respect of the activities of the passenger transport authority. I underline that fact for the sake of the Minister who will reply to the debate. The local authorities find themselves cutting their mainstream essential services in order to take up the allocation of funds from a Government Department. Exactly the same thing happens when funds are allocated from Europe.
The additionality rules should be changed for capital expenditure and the impact of the revenue consequences should be disregarded for capping purposes. It is simple. If someone offers one some money, should one be penalised for spending it? Let us use the analogy of the family budget, which in the early days the former Prime Minister used to use. Someone comes along and offers the family some extra cash from outside, money which the family gave to the person to help him along in the past. That is what we do by contributing to the European Community.
The person says, "You are on hard times. You have been recognised as a deserving case." Of course, under the Government's criteria, only deserving cases can receive EC help. The person says, "I want to give you back some of the money that you gave me last year." The family has to say, "We are terribly sorry. We would love to take it and we realise that it would help us to pay for the extension that we managed to build with the capital that you gave us last year. We would love to be able to heat and light it and let our son and daughter sleep in it, but unfortunately there is a rule which says that if we accept your money, the Government will take away some of the supplementary benefit." That is the absolutely silly position. One cannot accept back the help that one originally gave.
6.45 pm
We want the Government to clarify the position once and for all. If they mean anything that they say about urban regeneration, improving training and alleviating unemployment, they must accept the amendment. Unemployment is not taken into account in standard spending assessments, so it cannot be taken into account when resources are allocated to combat unemployment and provide more training programmes.
The silly attack made on Derwentside council on 3 June during the Second Reading debate was referred to again today. Derwentside took action to combat the results of the closure of the Consett steelworks. It took sensible, entrepreneurial and enterprising action. It got off its backside and took action. It did exactly what the Secretary of State asks authorities to do in his city challenge scheme. He encourages local authorities to come up with a comprehensive scheme to tackle the unemployment, economic decline, degeneration and environmental despoliation which has taken place as a result of economic collapse. He encourages them to show initiative and come up with something that competes with any decent scheme anywhere else in Europe. He asks them to provide the wherewithal to make the scheme work and give people the backing that they need to show their own enterprise in creating jobs. Derwentside did it.
Now what do the Government say? They say, "You can have economic regeneration, you can have leisure facilities or you can have a decent environment, but you cannot have all three. You have to choose between investment in training and enterprise, such as programmes to set up workshops and technology parks,"—those schemes did everything that all hon. Members would want to do for their area—"associated leisure provision and economic regeneration." It is too daft for words.
The £6 million spent in Derwentside—according to the Government it is such an evil amount of money to spend —has ensured that many people in the area have jobs who would not have had them otherwise. It has reduced the call on supplementary benefit. It has reduced the amount that has had to be drawn in redundancy pay. It has reduced the demand on the family credit budget and the amount that would otherwise have to be paid out in housing benefit and free school meals. However, instead of applauding the authority for saving the Government probably substantially more than £6 million in benefit payments, the Government ridicule Derwentside local authority.
Derwentside is one of the authorities that benefit and should benefit from European Community aid. It is one authority, like many others in former steel and coal-mining areas, which the EC funds are intended to assist. The Government should help such authorities by lifting the ridiculous rules on additionality and capital. For goodness sake, they should accept the amendment and help local authorities to do a job of work in preventing unemployment, restoring jobs, providing training schemes, working in partnership with the private sector and making the money work. The Government should stop capping authorities and disregard the revenue consequence of capital expenditure.
In simple terms, the Government should allow local authorities to spend European Community money which does not damage our economy but helps it and which is not a drain on the local taxpayers but assist them. They should not penalise local authorities for spending that money. It is simple. There cannot be a more straightforward case and I shall be fascinated to hear the Government wriggle about why they are not willing to accept the amendment.

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) asks for clarification. I am happy to supply it because, unusually for him, parts of his speech betrayed a misunderstanding. I shall cover matters that are familiar

to him and which he understands perfectly well, before dealing with the issues on which the misunderstanding arises.
Our view of money from the European funds is that they should not merely fund domestic expenditure but should be additional to the amount that the Government would otherwise have to spend. That is the concept of additionality, and it means that our global total for public expenditure is increased by the amount that we expect to receive from European funds. In that way we ensure true national additionality.
We make capital allocations to local authorities, and they may spend money that they hold or credit approvals or supplementary credit approvals. The Government's aim is to control total public expenditure. The amount spent by local authorities is an important part of that, and allocations to local authorities are made in the light of totals set at national level that take account of European funds.
Whether the amount that a local authority spends is financed by receipts or money provided by the Government in credit approval, supplementary credit approval, or by grants received from Community funds makes no difference. It all comes within the capital allocation, which is not necessarily increased because part of it is financed by a Community grant.
A local authority in receipt of a European fund grant has an important advantage in that it no longer has to seek credit approval for that part of the money, and it does not have to draw on its receipts or borrow. Obviously, it is the cheapest possible way in which a portion of an authority's capital spending can be funded.
I think that the hon. Gentleman understands those concepts. Of course I am concerned that some local authorities have found it difficult to spend enough within their capital allocations in respect of money made available from European funds. That is why, last year, we top-sliced £25 million from credit approvals and why this year we shall top-slice £45 million. I have tried to ensure that part of that top slicing is made available to cover the gap for local authorities that receive money from European funds but which lack the capital cover to spend in line with what they will receive.
That deals with capital allocations and the way in which we are trying to address the matter through flexibility on credit approvals to help some local authorities to spend money that has been allocated to them by the Community.
I was asked how European fund grants are treated in the context of capping. It must be left to local authorities to decide which projects are worth pursuing and which should be included in their budgets. That applies whether or not they have assistance from the Community. Leaving local authorities to decide on their priorities fits in well with the city challenge initiative of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. That challenge is largely about asking local authorities to organise their priorities and to put together packages of money for them.
Projects that receive a grant from the Community funds but which require the local authority to make some contribution so that the Community grant is not 100 per cent. of expenditure are no exception to this general rule. If the matter is important enough for the local authority to include in its budget, it will do so irrespective of whether that part of it is financed by the Community. The project should stand on all fours with others.
If the local authority receives money from the Community fund grant, it will need to raise that much less itself. The budget on which capping bites is that which the local authority funds from the community charge, the uniform business rate, the rate support grant and other specific grants. It does not include Community grant, because that is not part of the authority's budget. That money is outside the demand that the local authority makes on the collection fund. Therefore, it is outside our consideration for capping. I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands that point. We would not cap a local authority in respect of Community grant on part of a project.

Mr. Blunkett: The Minister's answer sounds extremely plausible until we think about what happens to European social fund allocations for, for example, training schemes. In such cases the local authority spends the money and a claim on EC resources is submitted afterwards. EC money is retrospective and the local authority draws on the collection fund to pay, for example, the wages of staff working in a training workshop which is 50 per cent. funded from the social fund. Would the authority be affected in the year in which it draws on the collection fund by capping for that expenditure, even though in future the authority would be reimbursed? If the Minister can answer that question, I shall be happy to concede that he has scored a goal against me.

Mr. Portillo: Before I answer that question, I should say that I got carried away in thinking that specific grants were within the budget of a local authority. I should have said that they are not, which means that the budget is even more restricted than I suggested.
The demand made by a local authority upon the collection fund will potentially be within the criteria for capping. I was not trying to score a goal against the hon. Gentleman but to offer clarification. If, in a subsequent year, a local authority is reimbursed by the European Community, the amount is not within the budget. Presumably that means that, in the subsequent year, the local authority has some other amount freed up, so that, taking money one year with another, the amount that it has had to spend has not brought it within the criteria for capping.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not intend this, but the amendment literally means that, if any part of an item of local authority expenditure is funded by the European Community, all the expenditure, not just that part of it, should be exempt from capping. That would not be appropriate, as even the hon. Gentleman may think. Perhaps he will not think that way because he is against capping altogether, so I shall not try to pin that one on him. I think that he was intending to exempt that part of expenditure which comes in grant from European Community funds.
I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman by saying that that is outside the budget and therefore not susceptible to capping. I have to recognise that, if the local authority spends the money in advance, then in the year in which it makes the demand on the collection fund, that demand, for whatever purpose, can bring it closer to the criteria for capping, but it will reap the advantage in the following year, when the grant is received and the grant will not bring it any nearer to the criteria for capping.

7 pm

Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful for the Minister's explanation. He will realise that my hon. Friends and I are in favour of not counting expenditure, whether from the EC or the local taxpayer, on projects that had been agreed as part of an EC programme, whether under the regional or social funds or under RECHAR. RECHAR is additional to the amount that the Government have already taken into account in terms of top slicing. It has to be like that, because RECHAR allocations are made after predicted capital allocations are announced by the Government.
However, we have had a prolonged and difficult debate about whether RECHAR will be accepted and whether authorities will have the necessary specific supplementary credit approvals. It is not a national issue. The debate is about the local authorities taking up schemes that they have drawn up and then had approved through RECHAR, and whether they will be able to go ahead with those projects when they receive the allocation.
It is fine if the authority gets a boost the year after, when the grant comes in, but in the year in which it spends the money, if it has to draw down on the collection fund, that authority can be pushed into fulfilling the criteria for capping, particularly that on year-on-year expenditure increases. That is important for authorities that may be capped in one year even though they will be helped the year after, and so have to make cuts in services that were supposed to be enhanced by the allocation of European moneys, rather than cancelled out.
The crucial point is that, the more complicated and centralised are the regulations that restrict the freedom of local authorities to act, the more that, in applying general rules, local authorities are restricted so that they cannot do their jobs properly. An authority may be capped one year simply because it has drawn down on the collection fund, but it will not be capped the next year because it has received resources that have lessened the demand on the collection fund. That makes no sense to us and no sense to those outside.
Furthermore, it makes no sense to count for capping purposes the money for a project that is supposed to be an additional benefit to the mainstream programmes of a local authority—that applies to inner-cities activities as well—rather than a substitute for what is already going on. The 50 per cent., or whatever the sum might be, that the authority has to find should not be included in the capping criteria—just as, retrospectively, the EC contribution is not.
The Minister's explanation has been helpful. I used the "goal against me" example with a smile, because I sometimes do not mind having a goal scored against me. It is winning the game that counts. It is important that we all have the same understanding when it comes to sorting out the Yorkshire rapid transport system, because otherwise education and home help services will be cut to pay for a project that does not involve additional local fund raising or poll tax increases, and has been agreed by local and central Government to make sense. On that basis, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Before I call the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) to open the debate, I remind him and the Committee that we have had a fairly good run on amendments to clause 1, so it would not be appropriate to go over the ground that we covered in those debates.

Mr. O'Brien: I appreciate that, Sir Paul, and I shall not go over the debates on the amendments. According to the explanatory memorandum:
Clause 1 provides that section 101 of the 1988 Act, which exempts from charge capping English and Welsh authorities whose budgets are less than £15 million, is to cease to have effect.
Therefore, the clause is important and significant.
It is sad to realise that the Government intend to press the capping of these authorities whose budgets are influenced by small amounts of expenditure. Examples have been given of how district authorities with budgets of £5 million, £6 million or £9 million can easily come into the capping range as a result of small increases in expenditure. As I said in a previous debate, this could represent as little as 20p or 30p per poll tax payer. Through our amendments to the clause, we tried to protect those local authorities that will be brought into the capping range, as that can only have a severe effect on their services.
Another disappointment is that, where local authorities, through their own efforts, have acquired additional financial support from either the EC or some other source, the Government have decided that that will be included in the limits set by the clause.
We also debated the precepting of parish, town and county councils in Wales on the collection fund. This is an important matter and we shall read carefully in Hansard tomorrow the answers to the questions on it. I hope that what the Minister said is correct, and it will not be part of the overall expenditure for district councils.
There is a gleam of hope for local authorities, because the clause will not apply before 1 April 1992, and we all hope that before then there will be a general election. I am sure that those serving in local government will welcome a general election because the Labour party has said that capping, as applied by the Government in the past two or three years, will be abolished, as will the poll tax system. People are hoping for an early general election, so that a Labour Government, who believe in and support local government, can introduce the policies that are needed to help local authorities to meet their responsibilities.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The clause is incredible, considering that the Government are supposed to be following a new policy and replacing the poll tax. It is especially incredible when later clauses are supposed to pave the way for the introduction of the new so-called council tax.
While all that is going on, we are back with the old form of poll tax legislation. The flavour of the debate smacks of what has been going on for a long time on the poll tax scene. All this is happening following the district council elections in which the Conservatives were devastated. Despite those results, and despite the verdict of the electorate—the people were obviously opposed to Conservative policies and especially the poll tax—at the first opportunity, the Government are back down the old poll tax route. Indeed, they are acting contrary to everything contained in their election manifesto, in which

they were committed to the principle of accountability, with the link between local electorates and their councillors being of supreme importance.
All the injustices of the standard spending assessment, linked to the Government support grant, are bad enough in that many district councils have been forced to charge higher amounts than they would have charged had there been a fair system of grant in operation. Now, such charges must stop and services will be destroyed. Apart from services that must be provided in accordance with statutory duties, important local authority ancillary services will come to an end.
The area of Derwentside has come in for strong criticism from the Government. Not only did it have special needs because of the high rate of unemployment there, but the Government's funding arrangements for the area meant that Derwentside had to find ever more funds from its own resources. I referred earlier to a written answer that I received on 5 December. That was accompanied by information that was placed in the Library showing money coming from revenue support grant, from the business rate and from the poll tax.
7.15 pm
In the Committee debates on the introduction of the poll tax for England and Wales, we were told that, in rough and ready terms, 50 per cent. of the total would come from central Government funding, 25 per cent. from poll tax monies and 25 per cent. from the national business rate.
By 5 December last, of Derwentside's total standard spending assessment—which it obviously had to go beyond—only 18·3 per cent. came from revenue support grant. That contrasted with authorities better able to handle financial matters, such as Westminster, which got 57·8 per cent., and Wandsworth, with 49·6 per cent. Other authorities appeared at the high end of the figures, but many were at the low end, and Derwentside, on 18·3 per cent., was only 162 from the bottom of a list of 336. My area of North-East Derbyshire received 11·3 per cent. in revenue support grant.
How could such figures be called reasonable and just in view of the great disparities between areas? Reference has been made to Audit Commission reports giving figures of comparable areas. They show wide deviations between SSAs per charge payer. Are the Government's SSAs and calculations wrong, or is it suggested that the Audit Commission's judgment about authorities being comparable is wrong? I have shown how the figures deviate widely —by as much as 100 per cent. in some cases—and I am sure that other Audit Commission reports reveal additional fantastic disparities.
Nothing in the Bill begins to eliminate the injustices of the poll tax legislation. Those injustices must be corrected if the Government are to be seen to be introducing a paving measure for a new policy. Later we shall discuss the problems of valuation. The Government's so-called new schemes are full of nonsenses and our fear is that although we may do away with the most unjust form of taxation ever invented in any western democratic system and we shall put in its place the second most unjust system.
We should be doing something to help local authorities get by until fresh legislation is introduced. Instead of provisions designed to cap authorities, we should have provisions remedying the problems that have been created by the Government's poll tax legislation. In the past, I


have spoken at length about the massive attack involved in electoral legislation caused by the poll tax. While this is not the time to develop that point, sooner or later we shall need a full debate on that and similar issues.
In the meantime, there is no justification for the Bill. The Government are trying to gallop it through so that legislation of a sort is enacted before the next parliamentary recess.
Many authorities will be hit by the Government's criteria. An article in the Municipal Journal of 31 May entitled "Beyond Belief" lists the authorities that are likely to be included in the Government's criteria. The authorities mentioned are not only Labour-controlled but include authorities controlled by the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party. As the majority are Labour-controlled, the Government claim that the measure is essential and necessary because they are dealing with profligate bodies. They are not.
Some of those authorities may have policies that could be considered problematic, but that is a matter between them and their electorate and not a matter for the House. Many are simply engaged in ordinary local government activities with the support of, and a stream of recommendations from, the Audit Commission and others to show that their activities are perfectly reasonable. I described the case of North-East Derbyshire, but many other authorities, such as Hartlepool and Easington in the north-east, are in a similar position. Those fall into the category of authorities that are likely to be capped or be threatened with capping, and will therefore have to cut their own throats in terms of expenditure. We must stop further development in that direction.
The districts of Conservative Members such as the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) will be hit by those measures. The hon. Gentleman should understand what is happening, as he served on the Committee that introduced the iniquitious poll tax legislation. I hope that he will not support the measure in the Lobby tonight, because this is an opportunity for Conservative Members to decide whether they have finally jettisoned the poll tax and are looking for an alternative, however inadequate, or whether they should go down the same road and vote at the Whips' behest. We must ensure that we inform their constituents that they have not departed from the principles upon which they initially built their case.

Mr. David Evans: The hon. Gentleman might like to know that Welwyn Hatfield is a Labour-controlled authority. It has the 18th highest community charge simply because the Labour authority has overspent, year in, year out, on services that its neighbours have provided at a much lower cost.

Mr. Barnes: If time allowed me to go through the 366 authorities, I would give the details of the amount of grant that Welwyn council receives from the Government. They are available in the Library and need to be carefully examined to see whether there is any credence in the hon. Gentleman's argument. Welwyn Hatfield probably operates exactly according to the general principles. A set of criteria has been devised which hits at certain authorities and not others.
Despite considerable efforts by Opposition Members, we never discuss the make-up and structure of the standard spending assessment and the grants that are linked to it. We have simply been told that there is a

magical formula that allows the system to function fully and well, but that is not the case. The Government have deliberately manipulated and fiddled the arrangements. If a genuine principle is involved, they should be willing to talk to those authorities that feel that they are being badly treated because they fall foul of many of the conditions that have been laid down. North-East Derbyshire is one such authority. We are not allowed to meet the Minister to discuss those matters so we cannot have an impact on changing the way in which the formula will operate under the clause.

Mr. Bellotti: I begin by referring to the standard spending assessments and drawing attention to the serious problems in different parts of the country, especially Sussex. If all the Minister's faith will be put on SSAs and subsequent figures will be based on them, how can he justify the fact that the SSA for Wealden is £100 of relevant population in 1991–92; for nearby Lewes it is £94; for Adur it is £88, but for Hove it is £173? That is why, some two years ago, the Hove borough council did not need to levy a rate for its then ratepayers. There can be no justification for those disparities of SSAs in the same area. It is not surprising that some district councils in Sussex look to Hove and ask, "Why?" If the Government are to base their future spending plans on SSAs they must deal with that issue in East Sussex and say why Hove has double the SSA of authorities in the same area.
The same problem applies in other parts of the country, and hon. Members have referred to that matter throughout the debate. If the clause is to be approved, neighbouring authorities will suffer when they try to deliver a level service.
Some local authorities have special conditions in their make-up. It is essential for the local economy of Eastbourne that tourism, in all its manifestations, is backed. If the clause goes through, Eastbourne will have to make almost £1 million worth of cuts next year. Like most tourist resorts in this country, it will have to cut its tourism budget. As 9 per cent. of Eastbourne's population is employed in tourism, unemployment will increase if we withdraw the ability of the local authority to encourage economic generation. There will be more empty hotels and less money coming into the country from abroad.
Is the Minister saying that local authorities that depend on tourism should not spend money on, for example, cleaner beaches which is a Government policy? Eastbourne and 34 other resorts have just been awarded blue flags for the state of their beaches. Is the Minister saying that those local authorities should not spend money on encouraging people to spend time and money in their areas? Like other resorts, Eastbourne also spends money on providing plants and flowers. The Carpet gardens in Eastbourne are known internationally. Will budgetary cuts mean that those local authorities can no longer spend money on such things? It could be argued that they are luxuries beyond what local authorities must provide for people's needs. However, they provide economic generation and growth.
The Minister has not dealt with any of those issues tonight. His arguments have all been based on finance. Indeed, every decision that the Government make with regard to local authorities is finance-led.
We were given to understand that the clause would provide the assurances that we sought about the position of parish and town councils at the lower tier of principal


authorities. On examination, however, those assurances prove nothing of the sort. It is not true that the Government do not take into account the expenditure of those parish and town councils in reaching their decision to cap. I should be interested to receive a further response from the Minister about the position of parish councils. Is it true that the Government will not take account of any level of spending by parish councils so that whatever the level of that spending, it will not count in any way towards a decision to cap? If the Minister can confirm that he will not take that spending into account we shall be rather more assured. We have listened carefully to the Minister, however, and we are not convinced.

Mr. O'Brien: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister has not properly clarified the influence that parish and town council precepts will have on the SSAs of district councils? The problem applies not to the non-metropolitan districts alone, but to the metropolitan ones. The hon. Gentleman has raised a pertinent point, as it appears that there is no cut-off point at which capping will apply to authorities lower down the scale.

Mr. Bellotti: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because we both failed to understand fully the Minister's response. I hope that we shall receive further clarification from the Minister so that we are clear as to the exact state of affairs before we vote.
During the speech of the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee) there was an interchange that might have led hon. Members to believe that Pendle will not be affected by the proposals. That is not so. Pendle local authority will need to consider cutting its services by more than £500,000. It is not alone in that because another 88 local authorities will have to consider what cuts to introduce next year.
Should the clause be accepted the Minister must spell out the effect of those cuts on local services. The clause does nothing to meet the needs of local communities. It attacks local democracy and it will not lead to accountability. It is not worth supporting.

Mr. Portillo: I believe that we have made some progress in clarifying some of the issues, sometimes to the surprise of the Opposition.
I shall repeat what I said about parish councils. Parishes do not precept on districts, they precept on the collection fund. Potentially we may cap what a district demands from the collection fund. What the parish demands from the collection fund—what it precepts on the collection fund—is an entirely separate matter. When we draw up an SSA—a level of spending that is appropriate —we lump the district and the parish together on the ground that what parishes do is in substitution of what districts might otherwise do. The SSA takes account of district and parish spending together. When it comes to capping, however, what the parish precepts is outside the conditions for the capping of the district because the parish precepts on the collection fund, not the district.

Mr. O'Brien: The Minister has now introduced a different dimension. He is now referring to the concurrent functions of parish and district councils. Is he saying that there must be clear demarcations between the functions of the district and parish councils? If one particular function

is the responsibility of the district council, does that mean that the parish council should not precept for that particular service?

Mr. Portillo: No. The hon. Gentleman seems intent on trying to smell a rat that is not there. The justification for setting the SSA for a district and parish together is that parishes do in certain places what districts do in other places. Therefore, the only fair way in which to set the SSA is to set it according to what the parish and district spend together. Since the parish precepts on the collection fund directly, not on the district, and since we are concerned only with capping what a district demands on the collection fund, what the parish precepts has nothing to do with drawing the district nearer to being capped.

Mr. Gould: The capping criteria are defined in terms of the SSA. Does that mean that it is possible that a district could find itself exceeding its SSA because of a precept made by the parish which, as the Minister said, would be included in the district's SSA?

Mr. Portillo: No, that is not possible. The SSA for a district is set without reference to whether parishes exist. Where parishes exist we assume that they are simply doing things that districts would otherwise do. In those circumstances the parish precepts on the collection fund, not the district. We are concerned only with what the district precepts on the collection fund. That is the only thing that we are seeking to cap. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has identified that there is asymmetry between the way in which the SSA is determined and the way in which the capping operates—that I do not deny.

Mr. Gould: I am sure that we are both aiming to clarify this rather tricky matter, but surely the asymmetry is the important point. That may lead to a situation in which the district is capped independently, but it may be capped on the basis of a criterion—the SSA—that depends to some degree on the expenditure by the parish council. That is what I understood the Minister to say when he said that the parish's expenditure counts towards the district's SSA, but, because it precepts separately, does not impinge upon the cap, at least not directly. I suggest that it may impinge indirectly because of its influence on the SSA.

Mr. Portillo: If the hon. Gentleman is looking for a problem, I accept that there is one, but he has got the wrong one. The problem is the opposite. Where a parish exists the district may be unfairly advantaged, not disadvantaged, because what the parish is spending is precepted directly on the collection fund and does not figure as part of district spending. I have given the game away. There is a slight problem, but it is precisely the opposite of that suggested by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). In view of that I had better move on to other matters raised in the debate.
I wish to be a little more helpful to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) about the European Community. Where a local authority spends some money and subsequently gets a grant from the EC, in the year that it spends the money it must find it from the collection fund. In the year after, it will get the money from the EC. However, if, in year one, when the local authority spends that money, it already knows that it is going to get a grant from the EC, it can take that into account in the year that it spends the money because the budget is assessed on an accrual basis. If an authority is already certain that it will


receive EC money, albeit that that money will not pitch up until year two, it may take it into account in year one. I believe that that is a more helpful answer to the hon. Member for Brightside.
I have not said that I will not meet the authority that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) represents. I have said that, at the moment, there is nothing new to hear from him and nothing new for me to say to him. However, when we propose SSAs, certain local authorities and certain hon. Members will want to have meetings and my hon. Friends and I shall be as open as we have always been to agree to such meetings.
I was amazed by the speech of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti). It is not for me to do his work for him and to tell him why the SSA is higher in Hove. However, it is higher because the social conditions are different and he should know that better than anyone else. The method by which the SSA is calculated is available for him in the numerous statistical reports which show how the SSA is calculated.
I was especially surprised that the hon. Member should talk about tourism. Last year I increased the weighting given for tourism from 25 per cent. of a resident night per tourist to 50 per cent. of a resident night per tourist. No local authority in the country benefited more from that change than did Eastbourne. So when the hon. Gentleman failed to mention that fact, it struck me to the core as an example of remarkable ingratitude and insensitivity.
I feel that the House wants to bring this matter to a resolution. I reiterate that the Government are determined to deliver the council tax at reasonable levels. We have set out figures for what the council tax would have been this year. We are determined that we shall not have a repetition of what happened with the community charge when local authorities allowed their spending to go through the roof and arrived at community charges well in excess of what the Government had estimated.
We have given our reasonable estimates for the council tax. We intend to deliver the council tax close to those figures, and the only way in which that can be achieved is by restraint on local authority spending. We are in favour of that: the Labour party is dead against it. That is why our figures for the council tax are credible and why the Labour party's figures for a return to the rates—

Mr. O'Brien: rose—

Mr. Portillo: —are wholly incredible. That is why this clause should stand part of the Bill.

Mr. O'Brien: I tried to intervene on the Minister because he referred to the introduction of the council tax. Some of the problems alluded to in this debate have been caused because the Government want to ensure that the council tax is put in place without a great deal of upset and rancour on the part of local authorities.
The Minister omitted to mention one element about which I wished to ask him a question. If the Government want a smooth transition to a council tax, will they announce the provisional capping criteria before local authorities' budgets are set? That will include district councils. When we considered the budget proposals of local government for 1991–92 we referred only to the metropolitan districts, the London boroughs and the shires, but now 333 authorities are under the threat of capping. So do the Government intend to announce the

capping criteria for all local authorities, including the districts, before the budget process commences? If so, when can we expect the announcement?

Mr. Portillo: I intend, as last year, to set out the provisional criteria for capping for all local authorities well in advance, but I cannot yet say on what date I shall do so.

Mr. O'Brien: I am sorry to come back on this issue, but given that local authorities will have to work within the Government's guidelines on their expenditure it is disappointing that the Minister has no knowledge of when the statement on budget-capping criteria will be made. If the Minister cannot tell us that tonight, will he consult the Secretary of State and let us have the information tomorrow, when we continue this debate? It is important that local government be given the information as quickly as possible so that representations can be made. One problem this year was the shortage of time For representations to be made by local authorities that were to be capped.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 273, Noes 211.

Division No. 164]
[7.45 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Aitken, Jonathan
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Alexander, Richard
Chapman, Sydney


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Chope, Christopher


Allason, Rupert
Churchill, Mr


Amess, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Amos, Alan
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William


Arbuthnot, James
Colvin, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Ashby, David
Cope, Rt Hon John


Aspinwall, Jack
Couchman, James


Atkins, Robert
Cran, James


Atkinson, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Curry, David


Baldry, Tony
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Batiste, Spencer
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bellingham, Henry
Day, Stephen


Bendall, Vivian
Devlin, Tim


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dicks, Terry


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Dorrell, Stephen


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Body, Sir Richard
Dover, Den


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dunn, Bob


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Eggar, Tim


Boswell, Tim
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Evennett, David


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bowis, John
Fallon, Michael


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Favell, Tony


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brazier, Julian
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bright, Graham
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Fookes, Dame Janet


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Forman, Nigel


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Buck, Sir Antony
Forth, Eric


Burns, Simon
Franks, Cecil


Burt, Alistair
Freeman, Roger


Butler, Chris
French, Douglas


Butterfill, John
Fry, Peter


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Gale, Roger


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gardiner, Sir George


Carrington, Matthew
Gill, Christopher


Carttiss, Michael
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Cash, William
Goodlad, Alastair






Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mates, Michael


Gorst, John
Maude, Hon Francis


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gregory, Conal
Mills, Iain


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Miscampbell, Norman


Grist, Ian
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Ground, Patrick
Mitchell, Sir David


Grylls, Michael
Moate, Roger


Hague, William
Monro, Sir Hector


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hannam, John
Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Harris, David
Nelson, Anthony


Haselhurst, Alan
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hawkins, Christopher
Nicholls, Patrick


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hayward, Robert
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Page, Richard


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Paice, James


Hill, James
Patnick, Irvine


Hind, Kenneth
Patten, Rt Hon John


Holt, Richard
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Portillo, Michael


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Powell, William (Corby)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Rathbone, Tim


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Redwood, John


Hunter, Andrew
Riddick, Graham


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Irvine, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Irving, Sir Charles
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Jack, Michael
Rost, Peter


Jackson, Robert
Rowe, Andrew


Janman, Tim
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shaw, David (Dover)


Key, Robert
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Kilfedder, James
Shelton, Sir William


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knapman, Roger
Shersby, Michael


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Sims, Roger


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knowles, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knox, David
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Latham, Michael
Spicer, Michael CS Worcs)


Lawrence, Ivan
Squire, Robin


Lee, John (Pendle)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Steen, Anthony


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Stern, Michael


Lightbown, David
Stevens, Lewis


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lloyd, Sir lan (Havant)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stewart, Rt Hon lan (Herts N)


Lord, Michael
Summerson, Hugo


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Temple-Morris, Peter


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Maclean, David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Thorne, Neil


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Thornton, Malcolm


Madel, David
Thurnham, Peter


Malins, Humfrey
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mans, Keith
Tracey, Richard


Maples, John
Tredinnick, David


Marland, Paul
Trippier, David


Marlow, Tony
Trotter, Neville


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard





Viggers, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Wilkinson, John


Walden, George
Wilshire, David


Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Walters, Sir Dennis
Wolfson, Mark


Ward, John
Wood, Timothy


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Watts, John



Wells, Bowen
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wheeler, Sir John
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Whitney, Ray
Mr. Tom Sackville.


Widdecombe, Ann



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Fatchett, Derek


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Faulds, Andrew


Allen, Graham
Fearn, Ronald


Alton, David
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Anderson, Donald
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Flynn, Paul


Armstrong, Hilary
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Foster, Derek


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Foulkes, George


Ashton, Joe
Fraser, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fyfe, Maria


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Barron, Kevin
Golding, Mrs Llin


Battle, John
Gordon, Mildred


Beckett, Margaret
Gould, Bryan


Beith, A. J.
Graham, Thomas


Bell, Stuart
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bellotti, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Grocott, Bruce


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Hain, Peter


Benton, Joseph
Hardy, Peter


Bermingham, Gerald
Harman, Ms Harriet


Blair, Tony
Haynes, Frank


Blunkett, David
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Boateng, Paul
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Boyes, Roland
Henderson, Doug


Bradley, Keith
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Home Robertson, John


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Buckley, George J.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Callaghan, Jim
Illsley, Eric


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Janner, Greville


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Canavan, Dennis
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Carr, Michael
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Cartwright, John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Kennedy, Charles


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Kirkwood, Archy


Clelland, David
Lambie, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lamond, James


Cohen, Harry
Leadbitter, Ted


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Leighton, Ron


Corbett, Robin
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cryer, Bob
Lewis, Terry


Cummings, John
Litherland, Robert


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Livingstone, Ken


Cunningham, Dr John
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Loyden, Eddie


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McAllion, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
McAvoy, Thomas


Dewar, Donald
McCartney, Ian


Dixon, Don
Macdonald, Calum A.


Doran, Frank
McFall, John


Douglas, Dick
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Duffy, A. E. P.
McKelvey, William


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McLeish, Henry


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Maclennan, Robert


Edwards, Huw
McMaster, Gordon


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McWilliam, John


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Madden, Max






Mahon, Mrs Alice
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Marek, Dr John
Rowlands, Ted


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Ruddock, Joan


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Salmond, Alex


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Sedgemore, Brian


Martlew, Eric
Sheerman, Barry


Maxton, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Meacher, Michael
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Meale, Alan
Short, Clare


Michael, Alun
Skinner, Dennis


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Soley, Clive


Morgan, Rhodri
Spearing, Nigel


Morley, Elliot
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Steinberg, Gerry


Mowlam, Marjorie
Stott, Roger


Mullin, Chris
Straw, Jack


Murphy, Paul
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Nellist, Dave
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


O'Brien, William
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


O'Hara, Edward
Turner, Dennis


O'Neill, Martin
Wallace, James


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Walley, Joan


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Parry, Robert
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Patchett, Terry
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Pendry, Tom
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Pike, Peter L.
Wigley, Dafydd


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Primarolo, Dawn
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wilson, Brian


Radice, Giles
Winnick, David


Randall, Stuart
Worthington, Tony


Redmond, Martin
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn



Reid, Dr John
Tellers for the Noes:


Richardson, Jo
Mr. Robert N. Wareing and


Rooker, Jeff
Mr. Ken Eastham.


Rooney, Terence

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

AMENDMENT OF GROUNDS FOR CHARGE CAPPING IN SCOTLAND

Mr. John Maxton: I beg to move amendment No. 41, in page 2, line 4, at end insert:
'The Secretary of State shall not treat the total estimated expenses of an authority as excessive when the budget set by the authority results in an increase in expenditure less than the rate of inflation prevailing at the time budget is set.'.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this it will be convenient to take the following Amendments: No. 3, in page 2, leave out lines 7 to 26 and insert—for paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to the 1987 Act there shall be substituted—

"(1) In determining whether an increase in expenses by a local authority is excessive, the Secretary of State shall have regard to:

(a) the level of unemployment in the area in the preceding three years;
(b) the age structure of the population and the reports on the general levels of health as measured by heart disease;
(c) the condition of the housing stock and the numbers on the housing waiting lists;
(d) the numbers in receipt of income support;
(e) the number of one-parent families; and
(f) the number of disabled.".'.

No. 42, in page 2, leave out lines 7 to 11.

No. 43, in page 2, leave out lines 12 to 19.

No. 44, in page 2, line 13, leave out 'the end' and insert "'enactment'".

No. 45, in page 2, line 18, leave out from 'to' to end of line 19 and insert
'new burdens placed on local authorities as a result. of legislation from central government'.

No. 46, in page 2, line 19, at end insert 'and
(c) shall have regard for the impact on the services available to, and the welfare of, the relevant population resulting from any action under this Act.'.

No. 47, in page 2, line 19, at end insert—
'The Secretary of State shall not have regard to grant aided expenditure assessments when deciding if an authority's planned expenses are excessive as indicated in paragraph 4 of Finance Circular 16/1990 issued by the Scottish Office.'.

Mr. Maxton: Clause 2 has been designed to bring Scotland into line with England and Wales in terms of capping powers. It extends dramatically the powers that the Secretary of State for Scotland will have to decide levels of spending in local authorities.
Amendment No. 41 and those linked with it, including those tabled by the Scottish nationalists and the Liberal Democrats, are designed to limit that power, so that it will not be quite as sweeping as it otherwise would have been.
All of us on the Opposition Benches—there are riot many on the Conservative Benches—would have wished to see clause 2 deleted completely, but as the clause was passed on Second Reading, we have no option but to keep it as it is.
However, the powers that the Secretary of State is taking under the clause will, if enacted and used, so limit local democracy in Scotland that it will become almost meaningless. Under the clause, he will have almost complete power to decide what he believes is an excessive increase in expenses of a local authority.
When the Secretary of State looks at the planned expenditure of any local authority, he will be able to say that the increase that it is proposing is excessive, even though it may be below the rate of inflation. It may be, as has often been the case in the past few years, that the increase in local government costs is higher than the increase in the retail prices index.
The Secretary of State may still deem that the increase—which may be designed to do no more than to maintain services at existing levels—is excessive, and force the authority to reduce its poll tax—or, if by some freak, the Government win the next general election, its council tax—and bring cuts in its services.
The people whose services are cut at the whim of the Secretary of State are the same people who elected the local authority on the basis that it would provide certain services—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is the quorum?"] My hon. Friends rightly ask about a quorum. If this were a Standing Committee, the Government would not have a quorum and would be unable to continue with their business. Perhaps the rules of this Chamber should be brought into line with those that apply upstairs.
8 pm
The Government may, in certain circumstances, impose new duties on local authorities that lead to increased expenditure. Even then, the Secretary of State may decide that such expenditure is excessive. For example, in the past few years, school boards, primary school tests, and community care have meant increased expenditure for


local authorities on behalf of central Government, often against their better judgment—but they have not necessarily been exempted by the Secretary of State's capping powers.
The Secretary of State already controls the level of central Government grant to each local authority, and the level of non-domestic rates. Under the new powers in clause 2, he will have almost complete control over local authority expenditure and income.
The likely future for local authorities has been clearly illustrated by the Government's treatment of Lothian region this financial year. I am sure that some of my hon. Friends from Lothian will want to add to my comments. Under the threat of capping, Lothian regional authority reluctantly agreed to reduce its poll tax rather than be subjected to capping. The Secretary of State deemed that Lothian's increased expenditure was excessive and unreasonable. I emphasise the word "unreasonable" because, under the proposed new clause, that criterion will disappear.
Lothian's increase was 11·2 per cent.—a higher percentage increase than Strathclyde, Grampian or Highland. However, it was the same percentage increase as Tayside, and lower than that of the Borders, Central, Dumfries, Galloway and Fife.
Lothian's revenue support grant per poll tax payer is the lowest in Scotland. At £453 per head, it is well below that for the Borders, at £798, and for Dumfries and Galloway, at £781. Lothian's expenditure per poll tax payer is, at £1,222, well below the Scottish average, and the third lowest in Scotland.
If Lothian had received the average Scottish revenue support grant, its poll tax would have been only £133 per person after the Government's £144 reduction. Why did the Secretary of State decide that Lothian's expenditure increase was excessive and unreasonable? I will be happy to give way to the Minister if he will tell the House why Lothian's figures warranted the description of an excessive and unreasonable increase. As the Minister is nodding, I can only assume that it was because Lothian's expenditure was set to increase grant-aided expenditure by 12·18 per cent.
Last October, the Scottish Office issued finance circular 16/1990, which stated, in paragraph 4:
It is important to emphasise that the authorities grant-aided expenditure has been arrived at principally for the purpose of determining and distributing grant. It is for each local authority to decide the level of services reasonably required in its area, having regard to the interests of the local community both as users of those services and as poll tax payers. The grant-aided expenditure is not an expenditure guideline and should not be regarded as such.
Why is it right for the Government to decide that grant-aided expenditure shall not be an expenditure guideline, but then to use it in deciding that a local authority's expenditure is excessive?
Under the present regulations and law, the Secretary of State's only threat has nothing to do with fact or logic, or with levels of expenditure, and everything to do with levels of poll tax and political prejudice. There was a blatant attempt to discredit the Lothian region Labour administration for political ends, in the slim hope that Labour in both Lothian and Scotland would suffer and that the Tories might win back some of the seats that they lost in 1987—or, more likely, might manage to hang on to some of the seats that they still hold in Scotland. That is very unlikely, but that is why the Secretary of State used

the powers that he did. His use of them had nothing to do with local government expenditure or protecting poll tax levels. It had to do with trying to protect the Tory party's last slender hopes of keeping any seats in Scotland.
If, under the existing law, the Secretary of State can use his powers in such an arbitrary and biased manner, how much more frightening are the powers that he is now attempting to take? The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities estimates that, if one applied the same accounting criteria in England and Wales, 31 district councils and five regional councils would have faced capping this year. The Minister may disagree, but that is a good, sound estimate, made by people who are very experienced in local government finance.
We have tabled the amendments to put some blocks on the Secretary of State's excessive powers. It will be for the other parties to explain their amendments, but ours are designed to restore the status quo and to retain the criterion of unreasonableness. That is a weak criterion—as the Secretary of State proved this year, it does not stand up—but at least he is obliged to make some effort to explain his actions, whereas under the new powers he seeks, he would not have to do so.
Our amendments also try to ensure that, if a local authority keeps its expenditure below the rate of inflation, it will not be capped. At present, there is no guarantee of that. An authority could increase its expenditure by less than the rate of inflation and still be capped, because the Secretary of State deems its increased expenditure excessive.
Our amendments also require the Secretary of State to take account of new burdens placed on local authorities by central Government legislation. Finally, they say that the Secretary of State cannot use grant-aided expenditure as his guide.
The truth is that the Government dislike the very concept of local democracy. They have been in power for so long that they are now abusing power.

Mr. John Home Robertson: It is corrupt.

Mr. Maxton: I would not necessarily have used that particular word, but I accept the implication. As Lord Acton says, power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Nowadays, if any authority wants to do things differently from the Government and has different ideas —even if it has been elected by the people—the Government wish to curtail its power, thus reducing its ability to perform its proper functions. The Government's arrogance is breathtaking: they believe that they are better able to decide what the people of Scotland want, although the people of Scotland have rejected them time and again. They cannot accept that local authorities elected by local people know what is best for those people, and should be free to make decisions without excessive interference on the part of central Government.
Neither clause 2—even if it is amended—nor the Bill in its entirety can end the desperate crisis that faces local government and many poll tax payers. The Government frantically abandoned the poll tax as they realised what a disaster it had become—a disaster which, incidentally, Opposition Members had predicted from the outset. Having abandoned it, however, they were not prepared to face the consequences of their own crass stupidity.
I now hear that the Secretary of State never supported the poll tax. I have heard through various grapevines that he does not believe in it. Perhaps, after the next general election, he will be free to write his memoirs and tell us whether that is true.
Instead of introducing clause 2 and the dictatorial powers contained in the Bill as a whole, the Government should have abolished the 20 per cent. minimum payment, backdated rebates for those who did not claim in time and restored local authorities' discretion to waive payment in cases where collection would cause hardship. If the 20 per cent. payment is wrong in 1993, it is wrong now, and should go now.
Above all, the Government should get rid of the poll tax as soon as possible. If they swallowed their pigheaded pride and recognised publicly that their so-called council tax was an inferior version of the old rating system, they could, even now, withdraw the Bill and present another to reintroduce the rating system on 1 April 1992.
We have said repeatedly that if the Government did that we would give their Bill every assistance. If they wanted to reform it later—as they suggest in the council tax legislation—there would be nothing to stop them doing so, in the unlikely event of their winning the next general election. Clause 2 of this Bill, however, does nothing to solve the problems that they have created for local authorities.
The amendment may improve the situation only partially, but any measure to reduce the extraordinary powers that the Secretary of State is trying to take must surely be tried. I ask my hon. Friends to support it in the Lobby.

Mr. Home Robertson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) for his extensive references to Lothian region. I hope that people throughout Scotland will have the opportunity to see a still from a television shot of the Chamber, revealing that, during the first part of his speech, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), sat on the Front Bench in almost solitary splendour—accompanied by the Whip, his hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope). Leeds, North-East is, of course, a well-known Scottish constituency.
The Secretary of State for Scotland—the leader of the minority administration at the Scottish Office—has now arrived to double the Scottish Tory representation. Yet again, the Secretary of State—in this case, the right hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) —has taken it on himself to set the budget for Lothian regional council.
I have probably been involved in setting local taxes in Scotland, nominally at least, more often as a Member of Parliament than as a Scottish district councillor, which I was for five years. That says a good deal about the march of centralisation under the present Government. Nowadays, instead of taxes and budgets being set by people who are accountable to the local electorate, they are set by people from Cornwall to Muckle Flugga—including people from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. They are answerable not to the Scottish electorate but to the whim of Government Whips such as the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East. So much for local accountability and local democracy.
8.15 pm
This is not an obscure debate about local government finance; nor, indeed, is the Bill an honest measure to protect local taxpayers. That is the fig leaf behind which the Government try to hide in their attempt to justify poll tax capping—or rate capping, as it used to be called. We hear from Ministers, again and again, that the aim is to protect local taxpayers from profligate local authorities. The Bill, however, represents yet another part of the Government's discriminatory and vindictive campaign against local services in selected parts of Scotland.
My constituency suffered more than most from central interference in local affairs during the Thatcher years. Here we are again, under the new, supposedly squeaky clean Prime Minister, suffering exactly the same treatment. The image makers are working overtime nowadays. It seems to me that the only difference between this crocodile and the last is the fact that this one seems to smile a little more often.
Ministers have taken powers to intervene in local government budgeting where they see fit to judge, purely subjectively, that the plans of elected local representatives are excessive and unreasonable. It beats me how on earth the perpetrators of the poll tax can be deemed fit judges of what is excessive or unreasonable. My hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart said that the Secretary of State for Scotland had tried to distance himself from the poll tax; I find that amazing.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): No.

Mr. Home Robertson: I am glad to hear it, because remember vividly—as will my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart—the long, weary hours in the Standing Committee on the so-called Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, when the right hon. Gentleman was one of the Members who supported the legislation through thick and thin. We tried to warn them then: we told them it would be a disaster, that it would be unfair and that it would lose the party elections. Virtually all the Tory Members on the Committee lost their seats, but still they would not learn. Now, finally, the penny seems to have dropped; but we cannot trust such people to be objective judges of what is unreasonable in local government budgeting.
The Secretary of State considers it excessive and unreasonable for pensioners in Lothian region—including the far-flung parts of my constituency—to have the free bus passes for which people in Lothian voted, as they have done repeatedly in local elections. He also thinks that a range of other local services are unreasonable and excessive—for instance, the Abbey residential home for old people in North Berwick, which is to be closed because of the package of cuts he has imposed on the region. The right hon. Gentleman wants to take credit for taking £18·5 million out of Lothian's budget and cutting the poll tax, but he must also face the consequences of the painful cuts that our constituents are having to suffer.
The services to which I refer are not luxuries; they are vital to the well being of the elderly, the disabled and others who rely on them. The minority regime at St. Andrew's house, however, considers them excessive and unreasonable.
The Secretary of State for Scotland has given himself the power—and now he seeks more power—to set the budgets of Scottish local authorities. But he has left the


responsibility for providing local services and responsibility to the local electorate with local councillors. It was Rudyard Kipling, was it not, who referred to
power without responsibility—the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages"?
Kipling knew a thing or two about the law of the jungle, and one wonders with what reptiles he would have compared Scottish Ministers, given their conduct over the years. Their judgment has been shown once again to be excessively and unreasonably harsh and arbitrary.
Let us look in detail at the situation in Lothian region, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart has already referred. Lothian has been capped again by the Government. As my hon. Friend said, for a start, Lothian regional council gets less Government subsidy per head than any other region in Scotland. It receives £88 per head less in subsidy than the Scottish average, and £117 a head less than the constituents of the Secretary of State, in Dumfries and Galloway region.
Grant discrimination makes it inevitable that Lothian has to set a higher local tax than anywhere else in Scotland. The inefficiency and cost of the poll tax system makes the position even worse. My hon. Friend said that the Government were abolishing the poll tax system. Would to God they were. If their plans are carried through, that system will last not only throughout the current year but for another two or three years, under the programme that they have in mind, complete with the surcharge which people on very low incomes still have to pay. The poll tax is still very much with the people of Scotland. The inefficient and costly system dreamed up by the Government is still hurting people in our country.
The Secretary of State has seen to it that Lothian starts with a built-in disadvantage because of the discriminatory distribution of central Government grant. Lothian regional council has tried to make the best of a difficult job by setting a modest budget—£10 per head lower than the average for Scottish regions, and £19 a head less than Dumfries and Galloway regional council, which covers the area represented by the Secretary of State for Scotland —[Interruption.] I do not know why the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) is pulling such faces at me; I am only citing figures that were provided in reply to parliamentary questions. I can refer to them more closely if he likes.
Despite Lothian's prudent budgeting, Government manipulation has left us with the highest poll tax in Britain outside Lambeth. That would be bad enough, but to add insult to injury, the Secretary of State now seeks to cut £18·5 million out of the Budget. He tries to take the credit for cutting the poll tax, while leaving councillors to face the music for the loss of pensioners' bus passes, and the other cuts for which the Secretary of State is personally responsible. He will not get away with it—at least, the Secretary of State himself may survive because he has given an extra subsidy to people in his part of the world, but the previous Secretary of State, now Secretary of State for Transport, and the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) will have a job explaining to their constituents why they have to put up with worse services and such a high poll tax because of the financial gerrymandering of the Scottish Office. They cannot be allowed to get away with it, and they will not.

Mr. Dick Douglas: After a fairly long Committee sitting we have come to the clause which applies to Scotland. Although we are discussing amendment No. 41, moved by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) I should like to allude to amendment No. 3, tabled by my hon. Friends and myself, which has not been given pride of place. It has the same thrust as the other amendments in the group, and would have the same impact on a situation that causes great concern.
With great respect, I have to say that the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has been looking backwards and considering the Secretary of State's current powers, but we are concerned about the powers that the right hon. Gentleman intends to take, the thrust of which would be to relate the Scottish position to that in England and Wales. That should cause us all great concern, because the basis of local authority finance in Scotland, as we all know, is significantly different.
The main burden of my remarks may not seem to relate strictly to our amendment, because that would affect schedule 3 to the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, but I want to relate it to the Scottish experience. I want to ask the Secretary of State about grant-aided expenditure, to which the hon. Member for Cathcart alluded. Will the Minister tell me whether we are to move away from the criteria in the substantial document, "Grant-Aided Expenditure"? That document bears some examination, because its case rests not on prejudice but on some degree of objectivity—although not perfect objectivity, of course.
If the Committee will forgive me, I shall quote the introductory paragraph of that document for 1991–92:
The tables presented in the main part of this report show the calculation of Grant Aided Expenditure…for 1991–92 for regional, district and island authority services. These calculations are prepared using the client group approach which is a systematic means of allocating a predetermined level of expenditure equitably among local authorities. It should he noted that the client group approach does not determine the level of provision in absolute terms nor its distribution between services. The total relative GAE for a local authority is the sum of the separate assessments for individual services. The total estimates of GAE for each authority are used by the Scottish Office as the basis for the distribution of the Revenue Support Grant.
That is the basis for the distribution of a grant. It is not to be used to determine whether expenditure is excessive. I ask the Minister whether it will be used as such. I shall happily give way if I am wrong, and we can save a lot of time, but, if I am correct in my assumption, in order to allocate the distribution of the rate support grant we shall use a device which sub-groups of local authorities have worked out with the Scottish Office over a period of years. I do not say that it is perfect; we may have disagreements about it—I am sure that Lothian would, and other authorities might, disagree with it—but there is a certain sense in which it can be regarded as a touchstone. We are moving away from that.
The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has sent me an appendix which says:
In England the capping criteria has been in place for some time and is normally centred around both the movement on a year to year basis in an authority's budget and what excess, if any, that budget generates in respect of that authority's standard spending assessment as set by the Government. The likelihood is that in Scotland instead of measuring excesses against SSA, the equivalent will be an authority's grant-aided expenditure assessment.


COSLA, the local authorities in Scotland and the Committee deserve an answer, not in the sweet by and by, but now. COSLA's appendix continues:
This is a matter of particular concern as it has never been accepted either by the Convention or its member councils that GAE assessments are in any way a true and accurate assessment of what each authority should be spending.
That is the gravamen of my criticism of what the Government are trying to do. On later clauses we shall discuss the intentions on valuation.
The hon. Member for East Lothian spoke about the effect of previous legislation on Lothian and other regions. As the hon. Member for Cathcart said, by giving the Government the powers that they seek in the clause, we would bring many local authorities that are excluded from capping powers within the ambit of those powers. Restrictions imposed by the words "excessive" and "unreasonable" will be removed.
Those are enormous powers to give any Secretary of State, but they are enormous powers to give a Secretary of State in a Government who have rested their case for the reform of local authority finance on the basis of local autonomy and accountability.
8.30 pm
We are giving the Government enormous powers to interfere with local autonomy and accountability because they have moved into the local authority sphere. The Minister, no doubt, will tell us what percentage of local authority revenue will come from the so-called council tax, but it must be about £1 in £10. The Government say that Scottish local authorities will collect council tax revenue of about £800 million, but that if they try to raise extra revenue to meet need caused, for example, by higher unemployment, the United Kingdom's macro-economic structure will disintegrate. I do not believe that. It may happen if local authorities that are responsible for 50 million people decided to do it, but not when authorities are responsible for 5 million people.
The hon. Member for Cathcart rightly said that we are concerned about having the poll tax for longer than is desirable. Anyone who is aware of the exigencies of the poll tax would not want it to continue longer. The Scottish National party and the Liberal Democrats have devised systems of local income tax. I have alluded to that before, so will not go into it.

Mr. Maxton: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but at a conference that I attended recently, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) suggested the replacement of the poll tax not by a local income tax but by 100 per cent. Government grant to local government. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would clarify that.

Mr. Douglas: I am not avoiding the question, but things have moved on. The Government raised VAT to 17·5 per cent. and are now responsible for 90 per cent. of local authority revenue. But should they so desire, they could become responsible for 100 per cent. Collection of the poll tax is down to 50 per cent. As a short-term expedient to save local government the embarrassment of trying to collect an uncollectable tax, the Government should have offered 100 per cent. support and the poll tax would have been abolished at a stroke.
A Labour Government would have to consider that, because they would be unable expeditiously to introduce the so-called fair rates. Capital value assessments and

valuations will not be introduced until 1993 at the earliest, and that will impose enormous burdens on Scottish local authorities. We agree with the hon. Member for Cathcart and were ahead of the Labour party in suggesting that the 20 per cent. rule should be abolished.

Mr. Maxton: indicated dissent.

Mr. Douglas: We may cavil about that, so let me put it gently: there is no disagreement that the 20 per cent. rule should be abolished and that students and others should be exempt from the poll tax.
The Government have a responsibility to bridge the gap in revenue. Perhaps VAT should be increased further, but the most efficient measure is the standard rate of tax. In the long term, we propose a local income tax, which could be introduced by 1 April 1992 if we began now.
The powers that are being sought by the Government cannot be justified. They cannot speak of the autonomy or accountability of local authorities when they determine what an authority will do, when they are responsible for 90 per cent. of its revenue and when they are saying, "No matter what the electors of the area want, we will determine what is excessive."
Earlier, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment said that he was horrified when he spoke to unelected people who said that they were speaking for areas. If we diminish the role of local authorities, non-elected people will speak for areas, because it will be difficult to attract councillors of a sufficient calibre and local authorities will not be accountable to their electorates.
The Government must make up their mind about whether they want to give local authorities real power, and that means accountability for revenue. They cannot drive a wedge between authorities' accountability for the services that they offer yet at the same time determine what revenue they can raise.
The Government are moving not only from the criteria that have been established to determine what is excessive but from grant-aided expenditure. They are trying to make Scotland follow the English model of the standard spending assessment by using a device that was not designed for that purpose. The tenuous trust that has been established between Scottish local authorities and the Scottish Office will be eroded and the Government will pay a heavy price.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The Liberal Democrats' amendment No. 46 has the same general thrust as that moved by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). He sought to ensure that capping powers should not be imposed if local authority spending was contained within the rate of inflation. We seek to ensure that the Government would not impose capping without taking account of the impact on the local community and on the welfare provisions. In all honesty, the amendments are merely devices within the framework of the Bill to try to constrain the application of capping powers. As all the speeches have shown, it is the principle that we fundamentally oppose.
It will be interesting to hear the Minister defend and justify the Government's position, but no doubt he has a brief that will eat all the words ever delivered and spouted by his predecessors when they gave us what it would be fair to call lectures on the need to introduce a system of local financing which would ensure accountability to the


electorate. That is now a dead duck. Accountability to the local electorate is no longer one of the Government's objectives.
However, there is a more worrying issue. I am not sure whether it would be appropriate, so I shall not identify the person involved, but I spoke to a member of the Government when the Government announced the abolition of the poll tax. He passionately supported the poll tax, but said that, once people realised that the Government were setting up a separate system of tax collection to produce precisely 14 per cent. of local government expenditure, they would start to wonder, "What kind of crazy system is that?" The Government are trying to impose capping powers on local authorities which, in any case, will have the right to raise only about 14 per cent. of their total expenditure from that source. How can that be?
The argument that used to be deployed was the minginess of the Government's support grant. That was the weapon that the Government used before, and it was pretty effective. When local authority ability to raise revenue is squeezed to such an extent, it is extraordinary that the Government should now introduce comprehensive capping powers.
I remember the number of occasions when the Secretary of State for Scotland boasted to the House about how he was able to administer local government in Scotland without recourse to capping. Throughout the period of the crisis with the rates, throughout the revaluation, throughout the introduction of the poll tax and its entire administration, the Scottish Office stood alone, proud that it did not have to introduce capping. Now that the poll tax has been swept away, to the Government's eternal humiliation, capping is suddenly not only necessary, but necessary as a permanent and absolute power to be available for use against all authorities on every occasion. That seems an extraordinary development.
There are several questions that we must ask the Minister. How does he believe that it is appropriate to have a system of local government finance which requires a separate tax collection system that yields only 14 per cent. of local authority expenditure? How can we trust him and his colleagues in the Scottish Office to determine what is excessive and extravagant and to determine what criteria to use to judge authorities' performance?
I echo the words of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) about the breakdown of trust that will follow between the Scottish Office and local authorities. There has been a basic understanding that the Government have a certain degree of right, and that there was a client relationship. Reference has been made to the confusion about how the rate support grant was calculated. In spite of the client group approach, there was some mystery about how each local authority's revenue and support grant was determined. However, it was accepted that there was a rough and ready justice and that the approach was broadly fair.
However, when the only determinant is the arbitrary judgment of Ministers who are beleaguered, whose backs are against the wall and who are facing political annihilation, one cannot believe that there is an objective analysis. There will be a simple, blatant political fix

designed to try to secure the preservation of the species. The record and the experience of the past few years should tell the Government that it will not work, but that does not stop them trying.
8.45 pm
The people of Scotland are pretty fed up with the Government and with the contempt with which local government has been treated. They are also pretty fed up with the way in which they are encouraged to vote for local councillors whom they duly elect, but are then treated with contempt on the ground that the councillors whom they have elected cannot be trusted to fulfil their obligations. The Government cannot say that not enough people vote. People have the right to vote; if they do not turn out to vote, it is not the Government's job to determine at what level to intervene and decide whether a vote is invalid. There are parliamentary constituencies in which the turnout to vote is not what it should be, but I accept that this is not the appropriate moment to discuss exactly how the House is elected and the relationship between the votes cast and the seats won.
I say merely that either elected democratic local government has a place in the future or it does not. The clause appears to mark the end of real democratic, accountable local government. The Minister and his party will be held accountable for that. He is making it extremely difficult to ensure that in future we have local authorities that can be trusted not only by the people but in their working relationship with central Government. If he destroys that trust and the working relationship between the Government and local authorities, which works pretty well in Scotland, despite the conflicts that have emerged, he will have destroyed a vital mechanism for delivering local services tailored to local needs and priorities. That is what the Government are abolishing and they will be held to account for it.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: So far, this has been a rather odd debate because it has taken place entirely between members of the Opposition. No Scottish Tory Back-Bencher is present to listen to this debate which affects Scotland and no Conservative Members are even rising to speak.
I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who earlier repeated the famous quotation about the prerogative of the harlot being power without responsibility. At least it can be said of the harlot that she is prepared to play an active role.
During last week's debate, I interrupted the Secretary of State to ask him to name the Scottish councils that he thought were extravagant and wasteful. He said that he could happily leave that to the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), and that he would do so eloquently. The hon. Member for Eastwood did not name one such council, because he could not. All he did was to reply in a nit-picking way to some points that had been made in the debate and merely mentioned various resources that had been allocated. Once again, he made a speech of the type that leads people to be deceived because they believe that the resources are hard cash instead of merely the ability to borrow money or to raise money through the sale of assets. Once again, an attempt was made to mislead.
Strathclyde especially is facing massive cuts on top of its previous round of cuts. That leaves it with extremely


serious decisions to make. The earlier round of cuts has caused the axing of many worth while voluntary bodies which were doing a great job in their communities but which have been forced to either give up their work entirely or to curtail it considerably.
I mention specifically one function of Strathclyde region, which is not a statutory duty but is nevertheless a welcome and respected function—the provision of nurseries for the under-fives. In my constituency, the local regional councillor, Neelam Bakshi, myself and local parents had to put up quite a struggle to preserve a nursery. The region accepted our views, but it has to be said that the need for a nursery in that one small part of one constituency in Glasgow is at least double the places provided in the area. Only yesterday, the Government said that they would provide 160 creche places for customers of Glasgow development agency, which would be funded partly by the private sector and partly by the public sector. They have at least recognised that the need is there. If they recognise that, why cannot they ensure that the resources are there when local authorities are providing that service instead of forcing the authority to consider cuts?
It is obvious that the Government are simply using their powers, which stem from their majority in the House, to force cuts that they cannot justify. It is interesting that they want to remove the word "unreasonable" from local government legislation, which says that if spending is "excessive and unreasonable", the Government will take powers to cut it. They have never been able to show that Scottish local authorities acted unreasonably. They simply change the goalposts and remove that word. If they were able to provide evidence, they would have done so and they have had ample opportunity to do so over the past 12 years. They have never been able to talk about any Scottish local authority in those terms.
We have made the point before and we will make it over and over again until this lot are shifted out of power. When the Division Bell rings tonight, the majority will come trooping through the Lobbies with no idea what they are voting on and what the effect will be on Scotland. They know nothing and they could not care less. They will then wonder why they are so unpopular in Scotland. I do not know what it takes to tell them—except the next general election.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I had not intended to make a contribution to the debate, but the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) has goaded me into making a contribution from the Conservative Benches. I promise that it will not be a lengthy contribution and I do not usually disappoint the Opposition when I make such a pledge.
In my early days in public life, I served as a member and chairman of a parish council, as a member, chairman and leader of a district council, as a member of a county council and as a committee chairman of a county council committee. In those days, as today, parish councils had to precept the big brother council—the district, city or borough council—for the money that they had to spend. They do not collect their own money; they precept the district councils for the money. However, parish councillors still work out their spending plans and their priorities. It does not make any difference who collects the tax.
What really matters to the councillors who are elected is to ensure that the money is spent wisely for the sake of

the people who have elected them on to the parish council. The system works well and I do not see why the Opposition should make such a fuss about who collects the tax as long as the elected councillors have the opportunity to fix their own priorities and their own spending plans.

Mr. John McAllion: rose—

The Temporary Chairman: I call Mr. Thomas Graham.

Mr. McAllion: This must be the first occasion on which I have been mistaken for my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham). I am sure that any comparison would withstand an objective analysis.
The group of amendments relates to the Government's attempts to strengthen the capping powers available to the Secretary of State for Scotland. To understand fully the significance of the amendments with which we are trying to change clause 2, it will be helpful to look back at some of the recent history of capping.
I remember well the 1986 Green Paper review of local government finance. At that time, we were assured that capping would be a transitional measure which would be phased out as the poll tax was phased in and that the poll tax would ultimately prove to be the system of accountability in local government which would render unnecessary capping powers for the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for the Environment. We were told that everyone would pay the poll tax, that everyone would have a stake and that everyone would therefore hold to account the local authorities whose spending was deemed to be excessive and unreasonable. We were told that with the advent of the poll tax, capping would be rendered completely redundant.
Looking back to 1986, I am struck by the fact that the review paper was quite touchingly innocent in its belief about what would come to pass. Things did not quite work out as the authors of the Green Paper intended. The poll tax ran into inevitable political trouble and as the poll tax receded, so did the early confidence that the Government had shown in it.
Capping began to make a comeback. We were first told that the poll tax would take a number of years to work and that we had to have capping powers as a weapon of last resort. We were then told that capping powers were not a weapon of last resort, but a reserve power that might have to be used from time to time. From a reserve power, capping became a selective action power. In clause 2, we are told that capping is a necessary power without which the Secretary of State cannot perform his function as the head of the Scottish arm of the Government.
Ministers will seek to assure us that clause 2 simply brings Scottish capping powers into line with those available to the Secretaries of State for Wales and for the Environment. They will also tell us that we need stronger capping powers in Scotland because the current powers available to the Secretary of State are limited and prevent him from fulfilling the role that the Government intend for him. However, that means that the Secretary of State for Scotland will now be able to determine not only the level of local tax in a local authority area, but the level of local services in the area.
I come from Dundee. The only time the citizens of Dundee see the Secretary of State for Scotland is when he sweeps into the city in a big car cavalcade and poses briefly in front of the television cameras for an opening or a


launch. He then sweeps out of the city before most people in Dundee are aware that he has been there. Usually the first inkling that the people in Dundee have that he has been in the city is when they turn on their televisions at night and realise that he was there earlier in the day.
I understand why the Secretary of State may prefer that. He knows that he is neither popular nor charismatic, especially with Dundonians. It is always better to be safe than sorry, so why tell people in Dundee that he is coming to the city? It is best for him to get in and out of the city before people realise that he has been there. That is the safest way in which the Secretary of State can visit Dundee.
The man who is almost frightened to show his face in the city is the same person who will ultimately decide the level of local taxes in Dundee. He is the same person who will ultimately decide the level of local services in Dundee. He is the same person who has never stood for election at any level in Dundee and never will. The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) stood for election in Dundee a long time ago. He registered a respectable 19,000 votes in the constituency of Dundee, East. May I remind him that the Tory candidate at the last election in Dundee registered an unhealthy 5,000 votes? That is not to say that the hon. Member for Eastwood was a much better candidate than those who have stood in the years since. It simply reflects the fact that the Tory party is that much more unpopular than in the 1970s when he stood in the city.

9 pm

Mr. William McKelvey: On my hon. Friend's point about the Secretary of State sweeping into Dundee and sweeping out, perhaps the Secretary of State can do that with such alacrity because there are roads in and out of Dundee. The Secretary of State never comes to Kilmarnock because if he ever gets there, he will not get back up the A77 safely.

Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. I remind him that we have roads in and out of Dundee because we have a Labour administration in Tayside regional council which has made sure that we have roads.
We are expected to approve the powers given to the Secretary of State for Scotland in clause 2, knowing that that would give him the authority to cap local expenditure, not in accordance with criteria generally agreed in the House, agreed between the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and Scottish Office Ministers or agreed in any other way, but in accordance with criteria on which the Secretary of State for Scotland alone decides and on the basis of judgments which he alone makes.
Whatever happened to democracy, accountability and direct elections in Scotland? In this alleged Mother of Parliaments we are expected to pass a clause which effectively will be a licence to the Secretary of State for Scotland to exercise what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) described on Second Reading as arbitrary authority. Unless we approve the limitations which the amendments propose on the powers available to the Secretary of State for Scotland, we shall give him unparalleled power at local government level and make a reality of what was once merely a political slogan —that the Secretary of State for Scotland was merely a

colonial governor. If the Secretary of State is given the powers in the clause, he will be a colonial governor in Scotland.
The limitations in the amendments are moderate—perhaps in keeping with my party these days. The amendments deal with moderate issues such as expenditure. If local government expenditure rises at less than the rate of inflation there should be no capping. I cannot understand why the Secretary of State for Scotland assumes that he would need to cap local government expenditure if it was rising at less than the rate of inflation.
The amendments also say that capping should be applied only where it is reasonable to do so. If the Secretary of State cannot accept that, he is telling the Committee that capping should be applied where it is unreasonable to do so and that he wishes to retain the power for the Secretary of State for Scotland unreasonably to cap local authorities throughout the length and breadth of Scotland. If that is what he is saying, I am sure that he will not say it very loudly when the general election comes.
Our limitations would also require that decisions on capping should not be made solely on the basis of the Secretary of State's judgment but that others should be involved in deciding what criteria should be applied where capping is thought to be the obvious route to take. The amendments also suggest that account should be taken of the new burdens placed on local authorities by central Government legislation. Surely that is a reasonable thing to ask.
The demands in the amendments are not excessive. By any standard they are sweet reason itself. If the Minister and the Government find it impossible to accept them, we must conclude that they are the people who are excessive, extreme and not fit to be in government. In the Government's arguments about the clause, especially on Second Reading, we heard a strange and novel doctrine being spun. It is the idea that local voters cannot be trusted to think for themselves and that they are not fit to decide who should be elected to their councils and who should make decisions about raising local revenue to pay for local services. We have been told that the Secretary of State for Scotland must decide for them, although he would describe it otherwise.
The Secretary of State once said—I think that it was in a statement to the House—that we were dealing with greater accountability to the national taxpayer rather than to the local taxpayer. But the problem with that argument is that the national taxpayers did not vote for the Secretary for Scotland either. So he does not have that democratic figleaf. Ministers are exercising power and making decisions at national and local level without ever having been elected either at local or national level in Scotland. That is the system which was described by Tory Members as unacceptable when it operated in eastern Europe, but which they use to mask their electoral weakness in Scotland and excuse their right to run Scotland without any democratic mandate.
Some Conservative Members referred to what they described as a breakdown of trust. The way in which the Government have operated in the past 11 to 12 years in Scotland is leading to a breakdown in trust in not only this Government but the entire system of government in Scotland. That is why the Tories are the only party in Scotland opposed to constitutional change and reform. For many reasons there must be constitutional reform in Scotland and a Scottish Parliament. One of the main


reasons for the establishment of such a Scottish Parliament is the behaviour of the Government over the past 12 years and the way in which they have treated local government.

Mr. Thomas Graham: I support amendment No. 41. I spent a great deal of time in local government and I clearly remember meeting local people who put into the system their thoughts about the types of buildings and services that they wanted. We based our programmes and policies on such an input, and when we fought elections the people voted for us. Throughout Scotland, local people argued their case and supported the political party of their choice.
Since 1979, the Government have committed the serial murder of local government. They have undermined the role not just of local government but of councillors. In the eyes of the public, they have made "councillor" a dirty word. The Government have accused them of not trying to deliver services and have used Parliament to mount a constant political attack on democratically elected councillors. That has caused a great loss of confidence in local government. The Government are beginning to rue the day that they started such an attack; that is evident from the way in which they were decimated at the last local government elections in England.
I am extremely worried about the proposal to cap local government expenditure. In my constituency surgery at the weekend, I spoke to people from Houston who wish to see the construction of a local library. People in Kilbarchan would like to see the opening of a community centre, and people in Lochwinnoch would like a play area for their children. In almost every village in my constituency, people want amenities that will improve their quality of life. That is admirable. Hon. Members like to see local people taking an active interest in their surroundings and speaking to the appropriate people, such as local councillors and Members of Parliament.
The Minister knows that I am disturbed that services in my area are being hammered, not because of capping, but because of the Government's systematic underfunding of local government. That has meant that there are not enough places for the elderly in day care centres, and not enough home helps. The savage increase in concessionary fares is the result of the Government's deliberate underfunding of local government.
The Government have now produced a capping plan which, they say, will protect people and prevent them from paying too much. No one has ever come to my surgery complaining that he is paying too much for local services, but many people complain about the Government and about the savage attacks on local government funding. The Government seem to have a tremendous hatred for local government, which provides many essential services to our elderly, our disabled, our mentally handicapped and children living in bad conditions created by the Government's mad economic policies.
People face high interest charges, and mortgage rates are going through the roof; families are made homeless and have to go to local authorities begging them to provide homes; yet the Government are denuding local authorities of the finance to build houses for rent, and to provide the services that help children who come from families that are broken up because of high mortgage rates and unemployment. These factors put stresses and strains on

family life as they do on local government. People want local government to act as Santa Claus, because the Government have failed them.
Capping is an import from the far east—as far east as Russia. The Russians have been asking the Government to help in their economic policies, but it looks as though, instead, the Government are importing a totalitarian system and imposing controls on local government. Local government has become as misnomer. The struggle to keep local government is nearly over. The central control that George Orwell portrayed in "Nineteen-Eighty Four" is here, and has been approaching for a long time. Capping is just another step along that line.
The day of reckoning is around the corner. People want decent local government, with involvement by the local people. In my constituency, people are crying out for services to be provided. That will come about only if central Government allocate more funds to local government and allow local government to get its act together and to have the power to borrow and to build. If local government cannot do that, how will we have local government services? Such services need money. Instead of capping, the Government should be supporting those services.
This week, I saw one of the most successful films ever made, "The Silence of the Lambs". It has some analogies with what is going on. We have a cannibal Government who want to gobble up more and more power for themselves. However, we know that power corrupts. The Government's attitude towards local government is corrupt. It threatens the democratic process because it permeates to those who vote for local government. The Government want to impose the totalitarian system that is so beloved by all of them.
I am disgusted that we are capping rather than increasing local government expenditure. Increases would ensure that the services for the elderly and handicapped that local government has provided for many years would continue. The Minister has an opportunity, by supporting the amendment, to support common sense and decency, and to ensure that local government continues in its rightful place.

Dr. John Reid: Tonight, those who have spoken have thrown what, if we were not in Parliament, would be called abuse at the Minister. Instead, we should perhaps compliment him on his forbearance and fortitude. I have never before known a human being who has managed to go through such a difficult time over local government finance, with so many twists and turns and U-turns, and remain smiling. There have been no tears of regret, and the Minister is smiling again. He reminds me of the words of an old song made famous by a constituent of mine, Sydney Devine, from Cleland, just down the road from Mr. MacGregor of Shotts. The words could be applied to the Minister:
If they gave gold statuettes
For smiles of regret
He'd be a legend in his time.
The Minister has gone through the whole of this sorry story about local government finance smiling. The horror of the poll tax stands in contrast to that, and I need not enumerate it because all of us—presumably even the people of Eastwood—well know the problems caused by the poll tax. We meet those people in our surgeries. At times, we see grown men reduced to tears by frustration and despair.
9.15 pm
I will not go over those issues, because I wish to concentrate on one fundamental question as we consider the mechanics of poll tax capping. In the last year, we have seen not simply a change of tactics in capping, not an instrumental change in local government finance or even a change in the manner in which we deal with local government finance. The issue of capping gives rise to a fundamental change of principle by the Government.
A good start would be for the Minister to say whether he agrees with the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who said in recent days that she believed that the poll tax was correct in principle. If he agrees with that, we are in a peculiar position, for the fundamental principle of the poll tax was accountability. It was sold—or, rather, was not sold—by means of that propaganda or marketing too. All the suffering, impoverishment, indignity and frustration has been due to that one principle of accountability, to which, at least in her honesty, the right hon. Member for Finchley still sticks.
We were told that, for too long, local authorities had spent too much money, and that accountability was the only democratic way—through the ballot box—to stop it. For three years, the point was hammered home. A relationship was to be built in between electors, local councillors and local authorities and local spending. If, at the end of the day, a local authority spent too much of the money for which it was accountable to its electors, the electorate would exercise their judgment through the ballot box.
That fundamental principle was supported by the Minister, and for that principle the right hon. Member for Finchley was prepared to give her political life. I suspect that, although they now wish to renege on it, it is the principle on which the Government will founder, because of the way in which they implemented it.

Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend rightly says that the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was prepared to see her political career founder on the principle of the poll tax. But the author of the poll tax, the man who devised it and based his whole political career on it—the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), the Minister of State—has not been prepared to sacrifice his political life for it.

Dr. Reid: The Minister of State has not graced us with his presence, despite his early role in developing the poll tax. No doubt he has other business elsewhere. I shall not make the same mistake as the Prime Minister and attack him when I do not know where he is. For all I know, he is dining with Her Majesty. Whatever his excuse for being absent tonight, we must ask the hon. Gentleman that fundamental question on this issue.
If the Government were committed to the principle—to which the right hon. Member for Finchley and apparently, because I think I see him nodding in assent, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary are still committed—how does that equate with the capping of local taxation? The matter is fundamentally incompatible. It is not possible to hold to the principle of the local accountability of the electorate on the one hand while saying, on the other, that central Government will dictate the level of local expenditure.

Mr. Dickens: Does the hon. Gentleman recall the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) saying that his council needed community centres, recreation grounds and libraries? Opposition Members blame the Government but why did not Labour councillors provide those facilities when there was a Labour Government? Why have they sat back for so many years and not provided those facilities? Why do Opposition Members suddenly decide that they want them and that the fact that they have not been provided is the Government's fault because we introduced legislation?

Dr. Reid: I was trying to deal with the strategic principles involved, but it is sometimes good to be dragged down to the local town halls to consider the important details. I shall discuss that principle in a moment. I do not suggest that local authorities should have carte blanche to spend Government money. The hon. Gentleman should question my remarks rather than those of other hon. Members. As always, I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) —indeed, I hang on his words. He brought great intelligence and detail to our debate, and none of his comments was incompatible with my arguments.
For the past five years, the Government have been saying that local accountability is the way to solve the problem. Either they believe that that is true, or they believe that the problem will be solved by central Government diktat. There is a fundamental contradiction. It is not a matter of balance or compromise, or of the Government saying that they recognise the dual negotiating roles of local and central Government. If so, although we might not agree entirely with their policy, we might approach it within the same philosophical and practical framework.
No Opposition Member would suggest that an individual, far less whole groups of individuals who constitute local authorities, could possibly be islands unto themselves. That is the difference between Conservative and Opposition Members. We are collectivists and understand that we live in society. We must sometimes cope with an ex-Prime Minister who, 6,000 years after the first settlements in the Mesopotamian valley, still believes that there is no such thing as society. Perhaps that is the view of Conservative Members. We do not believe that individuals are free to have absolute rights, irrespective of the consequences.
We have been asked to accept not a balance between local and central Government but a diktat. It is not in opposition to local government spending willy-nilly: rather, the Government assert that the legislation should pass dictatorial fiscal powers, so that the Secretary of State can decide local authority spending without paying attention to local needs, opinion or democracy. That is not only unjust but also inefficient, because such decisions cannot be made sensibly and efficiently by people with no experience of areas such as mine and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde and for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin).
I mean no personal criticism of the Minister. Let us suppose that the Ministers at the Scottish Office were not malevolent, that they were kind and just men. Even ascribing to them the most gentle, considerate and humane of approaches—if I can hold them in that fantasy world for a second—I do not believe that they could understand


the needs of Springburn, Bellshill or Linwood as they ponder them while walking through the leafy groves of Edinburgh, West or Eastwood.
Perhaps Ministers are flanked by permanent secretaries and civil servants who spend all their time running in and out of Bellshill, Dundee, Springburn or Clelland in the hope of seeing Sydney Devine. I doubt it. I suspect that, cocooned in the Scottish Office, we have Ministers from some of the most affluent areas of Scotland, surrounded by their social superiors, the civil servants, from even more affluent areas of Scotland. They make dictatorial decisions on matters that are vital to some of the most deprived and impoverished areas of Scotland. With the best will in the world, I do not believe that those Ministers, advised by those civil servants, can make decisions that are efficient or fair for local communities such as my own.
Even if a Labour Government were in power, and given our programmes and intentions, which are far better placed to assist constituents in areas such as mine, in all sincerity, we would be handicapped with the same civil servants. We can all learn lessons with the passage of time, and perhaps we could learn from some of the things that the right hon. Member for Finchley did. I am sure that we would not undertake a round of sackings and that we would not be dictatorial, but, in common with any other Government, we would expect to be surrounded by people who are committed to the general framework of our programme.
Even a Labour Government, with a committed programme that would be of far greater assistance to local authorities than that of the Government, would be handicapped if we took to ourselves the type of dictatorial power that the Minister is trying to take tonight. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that, even at this 59th minute of the 11th hour. I hope that, despite the U-turns he has already committed—no doubt it would embarrass him to do any more—he will think about withdrawing the Bill.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: In common with my hon. Friends, I feel that a disservice has been done to local government in recent years by the type of debate that the Government have initiated. We have had much talk about rate capping and local authority overspending, but such talk tends to highlight those authorities with a bad reputation. The Government have tried to give the impression that every authority is like that.
The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) asked where Labour local authorities were when the Labour Government were in power. It is a matter of public record that when Labour authorities were in power councillors were never out of St. Andrew's house and Whitehall arguing the corner for their cities.
Every stranger who comes to my native city of Glasgow, including hon. Members, says that a fantastic transformation has taken place.

Mr. McKelvey: Not in Easterhouse.

Mr. Martin: A lot of positive things are happening in Easterhouse—tenant co-operatives have been established and it has a swimming pool, which the people of Springburn have wanted for years. Hon. Members who do not come from Glasgow have commented on how fantastic its transformation has been, due to the sandblasting, the garden festival, the waterfront development and the co-operation of the private sector. I hope that

Conservative Members will give credit to local authorities that act positively. If they are prepared to hand out criticism, they should be prepared to give credit where it is due.
9.30 pm
Like my hon. Friends, I am worried that if we keep turning the screw on local authorities we will not get in the House the talented men and women from local government that we have had in previous years. If they cannot serve their apprenticeship in local authorities, where will they come from? Many of those who have served the House well have had a good training in local government. I think that I am right in saying that our Prime Minister had experience as a councillor.

Mr. Home Robertson: Not a very good example.

Mr. Martin: Perhaps not, but the point was worth making.
I served as a councillor in the constituency that I represent. Because of the nature of our activities here I cannot point to anything tangible that I have achieved as a Member of Parliament, but in the old ward that. I represented I can point to a housing association which is thriving and with whose fights to obtain grants I was involved as a founder member. I can point to play areas and even to simple things such as fences or walls to give elderly people with disabilities more privacy. Over the years almost all councillors were able to point to such achievements—that is, until the Government began their attack on local authorities. The Government are undoing the good work that dedicated men and women did many years ago.
I want to highlight the cases of three councillors who did an excellent job in the city of Glasgow. The first was John Main, who became provost of Glasgow in the late 1960s but who unfortunately died in office. He left school at 14 because his parents could not afford to keep him at school and as a result he was obsessed with seeing that every child in the local authority area had a good education. He worked night and day to see that excellent schools were built in Glasgow.
Councillor Gibb, my second example, was so appalled by the housing in Glasgow that he insisted that we build houses on every gap site. It is said that on a visit to a Glasgow art gallery when he was asked his opinion of a landscape painting he said, "That landscape is fantastic; just think how many houses we could put on it." That shows how obsessed he was with seeing that people were given a decent chance in life.
A colleague of mine named Patrick Trainer, a senior councillor in Strathclyde who recently retired, had the foresight to recognise that since we were becoming more closely involved with the EEC the abattoirs in the city of Glasgow would have to be brought up to a certain standard. He fought tooth and nail to see that that was done and because of his work we have a good market that will be able to cope with 1992.
I mention these people because they and others will not have a chance to leave their mark on local authorities because the Government are stifling them. It is unfair for the Government to put such a restriction on local authorities when the Minister knows that they have statutory obligations and cannot just not spend money.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) has referred time and again in the


House to the care of children. Local authorities have a statutory obligation to look after children. Regardless of councils' budgets, if children are in need they must find a home for them and give them food and shelter.
The Government have turned their back on the homeless in our society and that has put more and more pressure on Strathclyde regional social work department and Glasgow district housing department. The Minister also knows that police officers' wages are not negotiated by councillors; they are subject to national negotiation. The city treasurer must keep his or her fingers crossed on the outcome of negotiations in London with the Police Federation.
The matter does not end there, because every local authority worker has a basic wage which has to be negotiated nationally. I know that the Government want to destroy national negotiations, but if they do so the people who will suffer will be the workers in the constituency of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) where there will be high unemployment. Local negotiations will mean a cut in the wages and conditions of hard-working men and women who do not have a good wage to begin with.
I have heard members of the Scottish National party talking about the difficulties of local authorities. They say that the Government should give local autonomy a chance. I do not dispute the view that those who are elected by the community should have a say, but the weakness of the SNP case is demonstrated by the fact that men and women outside Strathclyde came into Strathclyde and told the electorate not to pay the poll tax when the elected councillors were saying, "We do not agree with the poll tax, but if you do not pay it where will the money for the services come from?" That weakens the case of people such as the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) who was elected by the people of Dunfermline as a Labour Member of Parliament and has not gone before them to say that, whereas he was elected as a Labour Member, he is no longer a member of that party.
Two things are worrying local councillors, as anyone who speaks to them will know. The first is what the Government are doing at the moment, and the second is that because the poll tax is not coming in they are having to consider shedding labour. Those who knew the consequences of not paying the poll tax, despite their dislike of it—we all disliked it—and call themselves trade unionists should hang their heads in shame. The consequences of their actions will be that men and women in my constituency where unemployment is rife will be forced out of a job.
At one time we had a railway industry which was a big employer, but, because of Government policy which led to the closure of that industry, the only thing the workers had to turn to was local government. Those who were lucky enough to find a job in India street or down in the city chambers were grateful for it. Those who supported the anti-poll tax campaign have not assisted those workers who are out of a job.
The Minister must obviously consider his Department's overall expenditure, because, whatever may be his view of the way in which local authorities handle their affairs, if the councillors give up and—God forbid that this should ever happen—tell the Minister, "Take your services and

run them from St. Andrew's house," he will be confronted with even more problems than local authorities have now. He would not do a better job, and the bottom line would be a greater cost to the taxpayer and ratepayer.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: We have just listened to a characteristically powerful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin). I thank him for his kind reference to some of the work that I have been doing.
I support amendments Nos. 41, 3, and 46. Unlike other hon. Members who spoke about diminishing local autonomy and democracy, I want to explain why I believe that the amendments will improve clause 2, to the benefit of the more vulnerable people in my constituency.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 46 emphasise the need to protect vulnerable citizens in our communities. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) spoke of the importance of ensuring the welfare of local communities. Amendment No. 3, moved by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), emphasises the importance of providing protection for certain groups. Paragraph (1) states:
In determining whether an increase in expenses by a local authority is excessive, the Secretary of State shall have regard to:

(a) The level of unemployment in the area in the preceding three years".

According to Government statistics, unemployment in my constituency is running at 13 per cent., and I see no sign that that dreadful statistic will be alleviated in the near future.
Amendment No. 3 refers also to
the condition of the housing stock and the numbers on the housing waiting lists".
The condition of many houses on the lower Clyde is nothing short of disgraceful in terms of damp—let alone the poor quality of materials that were used in the construction of those properties 40, 50 or even 60 years ago. However, Inverclyde district council has been denied assistance by the odd job lot at the Scottish Office and their officials. People come to my surgery to complain about the dampness, which, among other things, presents a very real health hazard—especially to young children and elderly.
Amendment No. 3 refers also to the need to protect those in receipt of income support, one-parent families, and the disabled and handicapped. Strathclyde's social work department seeks to protect the vulnerable in our communities, but its fine, decent work has been severely constrained by Government cuts in the past, and it will be even more damaged in the future. Section 12 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 allows social workers to provide financial assistance for families in need. Area teams are involved and the district manager of the social work department is given a budget each year to tide people over for a few days.
Recently, a young woman came to see me with her two young children. She had suffered appalling domestic violence, and was anxious to escape from a psychopathic husband. She needed money to get out of the area and go to close relatives who would protect her. The social work manager, or one of his team, was able to help, and she and her children escaped.
The present Government have cut that budget and will cut it again. Children will be affected. It is important to draw attention to the diminution of local autonomy and democracy that Scottish Office Ministers have inflicted on our communities. We must remember, however, that the


serious damage that they have done to the more vulnerable members of society will go against them come the election: they will be driven out of office, which is what they deserve.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): We shall, of course, follow up the specific points raised by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and others. First, however, let me address some remarks to the hon. Members for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) and for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham). I pay genuine tribute to many Scottish councils and councillors, whose work for the community is often not appreciated sufficiently. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde, who is not in the Chamber now, will know—as will the hon. Members for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) and for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster)—that I have never personally attacked councillors of any political persuasion in either Eastwood district or Renfrew district; and the two districts differ politically.
The question of resources is not the key issue in today's debate; I must point out, however, that aggregate external finance has risen this year by 10·4 per cent.
I confirm that clause 2 would strengthen and widen the Secretary of State's capping powers in Scotland. I believe that that is essential to protect local taxpayers from the excessive spending of local authorities which—or so experience suggests—occurs during a changeover from one local authority finance system to another. This year, many Scottish authorities have set community charges in flagrant disregard of the true interests of their charge payers. That is not true of all local authorities, but it is true of a number.
It must be Government's duty to ensure that the fundamental shift in the balance of taxation brought about by the Community Charges (General Reduction) Act 1991 has the intended effect of keeping local taxes down to a reasonable level, and is not used to fund higher spending. The new local level of charges made possible by this measure must be passed on to local people. That is why, in the last year of the community charge system, we are moving to increase central Government's powers to control total expenditure. That is entirely reasonable, although, as the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) pointed out, the new system will involve less accountability.
The hon. Members for Gordon, for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) and for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion)—I gather that I am always welcome in Dundee—mentioned trust. Let me confirm that the Secretary of State will make a declaratory statement in the autumn about capping criteria, well ahead of local authorities' setting their budgets. One criticism has been made—[Interruption.] I can give hon. Members an absolute assurance that the criteria will be published by the end of November at the latest, and our intention—

Mr. Maxton: Too late.

Mr. Stewart: The authorities do not set their budgets until next January. We will give the information by the end of November, and we hope to do so by the end of October or the middle of November. That is a perfectly reasonable timetable.

Mr. Douglas: We are in a transitional period. A timetable that may have been appopriate in relation to setting budgets in the past is not appropriate given the dislocation that local authorities are suffering. Cannot the Minister reconsider his dates and give the information—in consultation with COSLA, of course—well before the time that he mentioned?

Mr. Stewart: Of course we shall consult COSLA, but we are talking about budgets for 1992–93. We aim to announce and publicise the criteria by the end of October or early November, long before the budgetary process of authorities really gets under way.

Dr. Reid: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Stewart: I shall give way, but the House will appreciate that we are pushed for time.

Dr. Reid: The Minister must know that when he talks about October and November, there is a suspicion that he may be putting the decision off further and further because the Government are 6 per cent. behind in the opinion polls. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ten per cent."] Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that, when he reads tomorrow morning in The Guardian that they are 10 per cent. behind, we shall not find that his timetable has been postponed until March or even June? Will he confirm that the timetable is final?

Mr. Stewart: That was a risible intervention. I thought that I was being helpful to the House in setting out a reasonable timetable.
I recognise the point that amendment No. 41, the lead Opposition amendment, was intended to draw to the attention of the House, but the yardstick suggested—apart from the fact that it would not take account of any authority already budgeting well in excess of the grant-aided expenditure figure—would not cover the possibility that, as in the current year, inflation could sharply between the time that the budgets were set and the start of the year in question. I—and all other local taxpayers—have the right to expect authorities setting their budgets to take into account forecasts of a fall in inflation for the year ahead.

Mr. Maxton: One of the factors built in to the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 from the word go was the use of the retail prices index when setting the business rate—the non-domestic rate—in Scotland. What the Minister describes could have happened then. If the principle of using the retail prices index as a guide was right then, why is it wrong now?

Mr. Stewart: The reason for the inflation limit on increases in the business rate was to protect the business community. The limit was, of course, determined by the retail prices index for the year to the previous September. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting a limit based on the current RPI figure in March or April. That figure could move sharply one way of the other in the subsequent year.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) made an extremely well-informed speech. Most of what he said about the client group approach as a basis for determining grant-aided expenditure was right.

Mr. Maxton: An unholy alliance.

Mr. Stewart: There is no unholy alliance. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West was the only person here who took the relevant documents out of the Library for


the debate. I can assure him that in taking into account the client group mechanism as the basis for determining GAE, we arrrive at the figures using—as he knows—a large number of indicators. Indeed, all the indicators outlined in the amendment, except those on housing, are taken into account. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow also mentioned housing, but housing expenditure is not strictly relevant because it is determined separately. That applies to amendment No. 46, which is similar but more general. GAE is used as a basis for grant distribution.
I was astonished by some of the attacks that the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) made on the grant distribution system. It is agreed through the distribution committee of the local government finance working party—

Mr. O'Brien: What about the level?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member for East Lothian criticised the distribution, not the level. Distribution is agreed by the distribution committee. That technical matter is agreed between COSLA and Scottish Office officials in the light of advice, and the criteria and formulae are constantly re-evaluated. The hon. Member for East Lothian attacked COSLA as much as he attacked the Government.
Lothian's grant-aided expenditure is lower per head than that of regions such as Strathclyde, but it has a lower proportion of school pupils in education authority schools. Compared to Strathclyde, Lothian is relatively prosperous; it is a relatively small, compact region. It does not have sparsely populated areas such as those in Dumfries and Galloway.
The formulae that have been criticised by Opposition Members are agreed by COSLA. They are not imposed and there are clear social differences between Lothian and Strathclyde, which suggest that it is sensible to have higher grant per head for regions such as Strathclyde. Opposition Members have not advanced a formula that could be used by COSLA and Scottish Office officials to change the distribution formulae.
Opposition Members discussed the general policy issues raised by clause 2 but did not offer any clear policy. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that the previous Labour Government passed section 5 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966 to introduce a form of rate capping for excessive and unreasonable expenditure. That is being changed in the Bill, but does the hon. Member for Cathcart support what the previous Labour Government did in Scotland or what the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), whom I am glad to see present, said—that there should not be any such powers?
The Opposition are unclear on that central point. In contrast, the Government's position is absolutely clear. Experience shows that local authorities can use the transitional year sharply to increase spending. That must not happen in 1992–93, and under clause 2 it will not happen. The criteria will be clear and will be published well in advance so that local authorities can take them fully into account when setting budgets. The purpose of clause 2 is to give community charge payers in Scotland the same safeguards against excessive spending as people in

England and Wales. Those safeguards are necessary. On that basis, I ask hon. Members to resist the amendments and to support clause 2.

Mr. Maxton: We might have expected such a speech from the Minister. Throughout the poll tax fiasco, the cry of the Minister, of the Secretary of State and of Michael Ancram when he was a Minister was that accountability was the purpose of the poll tax. They said that it would make local authorities accountable. I remember raising in debates on schedule 3 to the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 exactly the issue that we are debating tonight: why, if the aim of the poll tax was accountability, does the Secretary of State require this power? We were told that it was a reserve power which would never be used. Tonight, the Minister is turning the whole issue on its head and is twisting and turning all his principles to try to get out of a very difficult situation.
It has been an interesting debate. Until the Minister made his contribution, almost the whole debate took place among members of the Opposition parties. Until the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) came to the Chamber, not one—

It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee reported Progress.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Local Government Finance and Valuation Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Again considered in Commitee.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Maxton: As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] As I was saying before I was interrupted, until the hon. Member for Dumfries walked in at about 9·50 pm not one Scottish Back-Bench Tory debated the issues involved—[Interruption.] If the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) had been here instead of going to have his dinner, he would have realised how many members of the Opposition had spoken. It is clear that the Scottish Tory party is not interested in local democracy or in what happens in the local councils. It is concerned only about its own power and its position in Scotland. I should have thought that some Scottish Tories might have been prepared to make a speech in defence of local government in Scotland, because it might be one way to save their seats.

Mr. Home Robertson: Geoffrey Dickens did.

Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is quite right. The one Back-Bench Tory who spoke during the whole debate was the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens). He was not aware that we do not have parish councils in Scotland, but it was interesting that the one short speech made by a Tory Back Bencher was in favour of the amendments. He rightly said that local authorities should decide what they spend, and what services they provide. Why did not other Scottish Tory Members of Parliament also say that?
I am delighted to hear that the Secretary of State will make a declaratory statement—although I have never heard that phrase—about the criteria that are to be used. I assume that such a statement is a statement to the House—or is it something about which I know nothing?

Mr. Allan Stewart: Wait and see.

Mr. Maxton: I am being told to wait and see. The Minister used the term "declaratory statement" in his speech. Will he tell me what it meant? Will it be a statement to the House? It is most interesting that the Secretary of State can make whatever statements he likes to the House about the criteria, but he is under no statutory obligation to stick to them. The distrust in local Government in Scotland of the Secretary of State and of the Minister is such that, whatever they say in the House, those in local government are unlikely to believe them. They know that, when the time comes and when the chips are down, the Ministers will, if necessary change the criteria. We do not want declaratory statements: we want a schedule to the Bill specifying the criteria in statute, so that we can debate them and vote on them, and so that, if necessary, they can be changed. If the criteria were passed in legislation, the Minister would have to stick to them. That will not be the case.
Yet again, the Secretary of State is setting the criteria and saying what is to be considered excessive. The Secretary of State has the power. Nobody else is to be involved in the whole decision-making process. The Secretary of State is now taking power into his own hands, which makes a mockery of local democracy, and of the rights of people in Scotland to decide what they want and how they take decisions. The debate is about local democracy and about accountability. That is why l want to force the amendment to a vote, and I ask my hon. Friends to join me in doing so.

Mr. Douglas: rose—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Douglas: Many hon. Members have not come in to listen to the debate and they have not heard the inadequate reply by the Minister. I asked a specific question about grant-aided expenditure, and about the criteria. It is evident from the Minister's inadequate reply that the Secretary of State intends to use a device that is for the purposes of capping. The Minister's reply suggests that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is right and that we are moving in the direction that it has described. That move should be deplored.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 213, Noes 286.

Division No. 165]
[10.7 am


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Benton, Joseph


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Bermingham, Gerald


Allen, Graham
Blair, Tony


Alton, David
Blunkett, David


Anderson, Donald
Boateng, Paul


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Boyes, Roland


Armstrong, Hilary
Bradley, Keith


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Barron, Kevin
Buckley, George J.


Battle, John
Caborn, Richard


Beckett, Margaret
Callaghan, Jim


Beith, A. J.
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Bell, Stuart
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Bellotti, David
Canavan, Dennis


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Carr, Michael





Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McAvoy, Thomas


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
McCartney, Ian


Clelland, David
Macdonald, Calum A.


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McFall, John


Cohen, Harry
McKelvey, William


Cryer, Bob
McLeish, Henry


Cummings, John
Maclennan, Robert


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McMaster, Gordon


Cunningham, Dr John
McWilliam, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Madden, Max


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Marek, Dr John


Dewar, Donald
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dixon, Don
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Doran, Frank
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Douglas, Dick
Martlew, Eric


Duffy, A. E. P.
Maxton, John


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Meacher, Michael


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Meale, Alan


Eastham, Ken
Michael, Alun


Edwards, Huw
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Fatchett, Derek
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Faulds, Andrew
Morgan, Rhodri


Fearn, Ronald
Morley, Elliot


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Flynn, Paul
Mullin, Chris


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Murphy, Paul


Foster, Derek
Nellist, Dave


Foulkes, George
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fraser, John
O'Brien, William


Fyfe, Maria
O'Hara, Edward


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
O'Neill, Martin


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Golding, Mrs Llin
Parry, Robert


Gordon, Mildred
Patchett, Terry


Gould, Bryan
Pendry, Tom


Graham, Thomas
Pike, Peter L.


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Prescott, John


Grocott, Bruce
Primarolo, Dawn


Hain, Peter
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hardy, Peter
Radice, Giles


Harman, Ms Harriet
Randall, Stuart


Haynes, Frank
Redmond, Martin


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Reid, Dr John


Hinchliffe, David
Richardson, Jo


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Rooker, Jeff


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Rooney, Terence


Home Robertson, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Rowlands, Ted


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Ruddock, Joan


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Salmond, Alex


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Sheerman, Barry


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Illsley, Eric
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Ingram, Adam
Short, Clare


Janner, Greville
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Kennedy, Charles
Soley, Clive


Kirkwood, Archy
Spearing, Nigel


Lambie, David
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Lamond, James
Steinberg, Gerry


Leadbitter, Ted
Stott, Roger


Leighton, Ron
Straw, Jack


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Lewis, Terry
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Litherland, Robert
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Livingstone, Ken
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Livsey, Richard
Turner, Dennis


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Vaz, Keith


Loyden, Eddie
Wallace, James


McAllion, John
Walley, Joan






Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Winnick, David


Wareing, Robert N.
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)
Worthington, Tony


Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)



Wigley, Dafydd
Tellers for the Ayes:


Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Mr. Martyn Jones, and


Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Mr. Allen McKay.


Wilson, Brian



NOES


Adley, Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Alexander, Richard
Dover, Den


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dunn, Bob


Allason, Rupert
Durant, Sir Anthony


Amess, David
Dykes, Hugh


Amos, Alan
Eggar, Tim


Arbuthnot, James
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Evennett, David


Ashby, David
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Aspinwall, Jack
Fallon, Michael


Atkins, Robert
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Atkinson, David
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Baldry, Tony
Fishburn, John Dudley


Batiste, Spencer
Fookes, Dame Janet


Bellingham, Henry
Forman, Nigel


Bendall, Vivian
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Forth, Eric


Benyon, W.
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Franks, Cecil


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Freeman, Roger


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
French, Douglas


Body, Sir Richard
Fry, Peter


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gale, Roger


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gardiner, Sir George


Boswell, Tim
Gill, Christopher


Bottomley, Peter
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Goodlad, Alastair


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bowis, John
Gorst, John


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brazier, Julian
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bright, Graham
Gregory, Conal


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Grist, Ian


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Ground, Patrick


Buck, Sir Antony
Grylls, Michael


Burns, Simon
Hague, William


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Butler, Chris
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butterfill, John
Hannam, John


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Carrington, Matthew
Harris, David


Carttiss, Michael
Haselhurst, Alan


Cash, William
Hawkins, Christopher


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hayes, Jerry


Chapman, Sydney
Hayward, Robert


Chope, Christopher
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Churchill, Mr
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Colvin, Michael
Hill, James


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hind, Kenneth


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Holt, Richard


Cope, Rt Hon John
Hordern, Sir Peter


Couchman, James
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cran, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Curry, David
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Day, Stephen
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Devlin, Tim
Hunter, Andrew


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Dicks, Terry
Irvine, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Irving, Sir Charles





Jack, Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Jackson, Robert
Rathbone, Tim


Janman, Tim
Redwood, John


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rhodes James, Robert


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Roe, Mrs Marion


Key, Robert
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Kilfedder, James
Rost, Peter


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rowe, Andrew


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sackville, Hon Tom


Knapman, Roger
Sayeed, Jonathan


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Knowles, Michael
Shelton, Sir William


Knox, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Latham, Michael
Shersby, Michael


Lawrence, Ivan
Sims, Roger


Lee, John (Pendle)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Squire, Robin


Lord, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McCrindle, Sir Robert
Steen, Anthony


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Stern, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stevens, Lewis


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Maclean, David
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sumberg, David


Madel, David
Summerson, Hugo


Malins, Humfrey
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Maples, John
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Marland, Paul
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marlow, Tony
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Thorne, Neil


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thornton, Malcolm


Mates, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Maude, Hon Francis
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Tracey, Richard


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tredinnick, David


Mills, Iain
Trippier, David


Miscampbell, Norman
Trotter, Neville


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mitchell, Sir David
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Moate, Roger
Viggers, Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Moore, Rt Hon John
Walden, George


Morrison, Sir Charles
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Ward, John


Moss, Malcolm
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Watts, John


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Wells, Bowen


Nelson, Anthony
Wheeler, Sir John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Whitney, Ray


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Widdecombe, Ann


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Wilkinson, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wilshire, David


Page, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Paice, James
Wolfson, Mark


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Wood, Timothy


Patnick, Irvine
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Patten, Rt Hon John
Yeo, Tim


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth



Porter, David (Waveney)
Tellers for the Noes:


Portillo, Michael
Mr. David Lightbown and


Powell, William (Corby)
Mr. John M. Taylor.


Price, Sir David

Question accordingly negatived.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 284, Noes 212.

Division No. 166]
[10.19 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Durant, Sir Anthony


Alexander, Richard
Dykes, Hugh


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Eggar, Tim


Allason, Rupert
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Amess, David
Evennett, David


Amos, Alan
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Arbuthnot, James
Fallon, Michael


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Ashby, David
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Aspinwall, Jack
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Atkins, Robert
Fishburn, John Dudley


Atkinson, David
Fookes, Dame Janet


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Forman, Nigel


Baldry, Tony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Batiste, Spencer
Forth, Eric


Bellingham, Henry
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bendall, Vivian
Franks, Cecil


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Freeman, Roger


Benyon, W.
French, Douglas


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fry, Peter


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gale, Roger


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gardiner, Sir George


Body, Sir Richard
Gill, Christopher


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Goodlad, Alastair


Boswell, Tim
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bottomley, Peter
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gorst, John


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bowis, John
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Gregory, Conal


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Brazier, Julian
Grist, Ian


Bright, Graham
Ground, Patrick


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Grylls, Michael


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hague, William


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burns, Simon
Hannam, John


Burt, Alistair
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Butler, Chris
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Butterfill, John
Harris, David


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawkins, Christopher


Carrington, Matthew
Hayes, Jerry


Carttiss, Michael
Hayward, Robert


Cash, William
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Chapman, Sydney
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Chope, Christopher
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Churchill, Mr
Hill, James


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hind, Kenneth


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Holt, Richard


Colvin, Michael
Hordern, Sir Peter


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Couchman, James
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Cran, James
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Curry, David
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Hunter, Andrew


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Irvine, Michael


Day, Stephen
Irving, Sir Charles


Devlin, Tim
Jack, Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jackson, Robert


Dicks, Terry
Janman, Tim


Dorrell, Stephen
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dover, Den
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Dunn, Bob
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael





Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rhodes James, Robert


Key, Robert
Riddick, Graham


Kilfedder, James
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Knapman, Roger
Rost, Peter


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Rowe, Andrew


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knowles, Michael
Sackville, Hon Tom


Knox, David
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shaw, David (Dover)


Latham, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lawrence, Ivan
Shelton, Sir William


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shersby, Michael


Lightbown, David
Sims, Roger


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Squire, Robin


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stanbrook, Ivor


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maclean, David
Steen, Anthony


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Stern, Michael


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stevens, Lewis


Malins, Humfrey
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mans, Keith
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Maples, John
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Marland, Paul
Sumberg, David


Marlow, Tony
Summerson, Hugo


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mates, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Maude, Hon Francis
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thorne, Neil


Mills, Iain
Thornton, Malcolm


Miscampbell, Norman
Thurnham, Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mitchell, Sir David
Tracey, Richard


Moate, Roger
Tredinnick, David


Monro, Sir Hector
Trippier, David


Moore, Rt Hon John
Trotter, Neville


Morrison, Sir Charles
Twinn, Dr Ian


Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Moss, Malcolm
Viggers, Peter


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Walden, George


Nelson, Anthony
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Ward, John


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Watts, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wells, Bowen


Page, Richard
Wheeler, Sir John


Paice, James
Whitney, Ray


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Widdecombe, Ann


Patnick, Irvine
Wilkinson, John


Patten, Rt Hon John
Wilshire, David


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wolfson, Mark


Porter, David (Waveney)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Portillo, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Powell, William (Corby)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Price, Sir David



Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rathbone, Tim
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Redwood, John
Mr. Timothy Wood.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Armstrong, Hilary


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack


Allen, Graham
Ashton, Joe


Alton, David
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)


Anderson, Donald
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)






Barron, Kevin
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Battle, John
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Beckett, Margaret
Flynn, Paul


Beith, A. J.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bell, Stuart
Foster, Derek


Bellotti, David
Foulkes, George


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fraser, John


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Fyfe, Maria


Benton, Joseph
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Bermingham, Gerald
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Blair, Tony
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Blunkett, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Boateng, Paul
Gordon, Mildred


Boyes, Roland
Gould, Bryan


Bradley, Keith
Graham, Thomas


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Grocott, Bruce


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Hain, Peter


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hardy, Peter


Buckley, George J.
Harman, Ms Harriet


Caborn, Richard
Haynes, Frank


Callaghan, Jim
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hinchliffe, David


Canavan, Dennis
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Carr, Michael
Home Robertson, John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Clelland, David
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cummings, John
Illsley, Eric


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Ingram, Adam


Cunningham, Dr John
Janner, Greville


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Dewar, Donald
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dixon, Don
Kennedy, Charles


Doran, Frank
Kirkwood, Archy


Douglas, Dick
Lambie, David


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lamond, James


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Leadbitter, Ted


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Leighton, Ron


Edwards, Huw
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Lewis, Terry


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Litherland, Robert


Fatchett, Derek
Livingstone, Ken


Faulds, Andrew
Livsey, Richard


Fearn, Ronald
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)





Loyden, Eddie
Redmond, Martin


McAllion, John
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


McAvoy, Thomas
Reid, Dr John


McCartney, Ian
Richardson, Jo


Macdonald, Calum A.
Rooker, Jeff


McFall, John
Rooney, Terence


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McKelvey, William
Rowlands, Ted


McLeish, Henry
Ruddock, Joan


Maclennan, Robert
Salmond, Alex


McMaster, Gordon
Sedgemore, Brian


McWilliam, John
Sheerman, Barry


Madden, Max
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Marek, Dr John
Short, Clare


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Maxton, John
Soley, Clive


Meacher, Michael
Spearing, Nigel


Meale, Alan
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Michael, Alun
Steinberg, Gerry


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Stott, Roger


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Straw, Jack


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Morley, Elliot
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Turner, Dennis


Mowlam, Marjorie
Vaz, Keith


Mullin, Chris
Wallace, James


Murphy, Paul
Walley, Joan


Nellist, Dave
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wareing, Robert N.


O'Brien, William
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


O'Hara, Edward
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


O'Neill, Martin
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wigley, Dafydd


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Parry, Robert
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Patchett, Terry
Wilson, Brian


Pendry, Tom
Winnick, David


Pike, Peter L.
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Worthington, Tony


Prescott, John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Primarolo, Dawn



Quin, Ms Joyce
Tellers for the Noes:


Radice, Giles
Mr. Jack Thompson and


Randall, Stuart
Mr. Ken Eastham.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

Trunk Roads (Leicestershire)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Mr. Keith Vaz: I welcome the opportunity to raise the concern, anxiety and anger of my constituents about the road system in Leicester and its effect on my fellow citizens' quality of life. I have arrived in great haste from a packed public meeting at the Judgemeadow community college, Marydene drive, in Leicester. The meeting was called by the county council to consider the public response to the proposals for the eastern district distributor road that will pass through the Colemand and Evington wards of my constituency. Together with the A46-A47 link road, they will directly affect the lives of 16,000 people in Leicester, East.
I am grateful to the local residents of Leicester who have, in the past few years, fashioned impeccable arguments against that road and in favour of a trunk road round Leicester—people such as Arthur Padmore who, two decades ago, as a local councillor, chaired meetings against it. Thanks is also due to Frank Kerr, Sue Chapman, Walter Lindsay, Val Jones, John Thomas and others who have either initiated petitions or convened meetings. Special thanks goes to Councillors Mike Preston, Mary Draycott and Stewart Foster. Tenants, residents, parents, school children, vicars, head teachers and pensioners have all joined in our protest.
Today is the fourth anniversary of my election to the House. I first raised this issue in my maiden speech. Since then, petitions to Parliament, lobbies and other activities have been undertaken. The Minister will recall that I met him about this matter and I met his predecessor. They courteously told me that, in the first instance, the scheme was a matter for the local authority. However, after hearing the arguments, I hope that the Minister will realise that the only way in which to alleviate the hardship and anxiety of the people of Leicester, East is the creation of a trunk road around, but not inside, Leicester. Additional Government funding must be made to help the local authority achieve that.
Leicester has the privilege of holding the title of "Environment City", yet its road system, the traffic congestion and the noise and pollution from that traffic threatens to destroy the environmental nirvana that good people and an energetic city council have sought to create.
I am sorry to say that some county council members and the officers they instruct are crazy about roads. If they see a trafic problem they create a new road. The people who want to put the new road through do not live in the area. They do not shop there, they do not send their children to the local schools and they do not worship there. They are oblivious to the catastrophe that they are going to create.
From its inception the entire route has been opposed. It has been made clear time and time again that the road system will not cope with the proposed traffic flow, that the structure of houses will have to be strengthened and made safe and that the route roads and the roads off them already deserve a reduction in traffic flows, not an increase.
What are the consequences of the scheme? There is no need for the local people to be handed a crystal ball as they know what the future will be like. Their lives will simply not be the same again. By the time the route reaches the

junction of Colchester road and Uppingham road, 22,000 vehicles a day will be travelling along it. From the stretch from St. Joseph's church to the junction of Wicklow drive and Westmeath road, the number of vehicles increases from the present level of 12,000 to 22,000 a day. From the junction of Wicklow drive to Colman road the current level of 9,000 vehicles a day increases to 18,000. From Colman road to the junction of Ethel road and Main street the current level of 9,000 vehicles a day rises to an estimated 23,000. From Main street down to Biggin Hill road the number goes up from 3,000 to 18,000. The number of vehicles that will join the A6 from Biggin Hill road will increase to 25,000.
The local authority has failed miserably to get its act together. It has constructed stage 1 of the A46-A47 link road at a cost of £2·1 million. It is now embarrassed because people are pulling their trotters and saying that it is a road that goes nowhere. If the residents of Hungerton boulevard had their way, it would point straight at Glenfield and right into the plush office of the dapper Mr. Tommy Thompson, the director of planning and transportation.
Last Sunday, the residents of Hungerton boulevard and Hotoff road joined me and the residents of Abbotts road and Scruptoff lane in a march along the route which was organised by Mr. Trevor Merby. That quiet and unassuming stretch of road is to become the Brands Hatch of the midlands. The residents of Hungerton boulevard have a loaded gun pointed at them, yet they have not been told dates, places or times of events or even how much of their gardens they will have to give up.
The situation for the residents of Abbotts road is much more dramatic. After being told for years that the route would go behind their gardens and through the land owned by the Leicester clinic, the residents discovered that the county council had decided to put it through their road. In the history of local democracy in Leicester, this will be remembered as a famous breach of faith. The residents and I will not permit a unilateral change to satisfy the egos of those who work in county hall. Abbotts road and the dogleg into Scruptoff lane is already a busy road and it will not be able to handle 20,000 vehicles a day. The residents' response will be an emphatic no. Nor are the Colchester road residents the least bit impressed by the council's assurances that the road will be improved to cope with the traffic. How is one supposed to cope with a permanent headache?
It is said that Colchester road looks like a road purpose-built for an orbital road round Leicester. The residents of Colchester road think differently. They think that it is fine as it is. The Goodwood road versus Spencifield lane debate is a disgraceful attempt to divide my constituency and drive a wedge between residents who have already campaigned on the same side. It is grossly incompetent of the council to wait until now to ask people their views; and the council now proposes—the Minister knows this because I raised it with him at a meeting—either a dual carriageway down Goodwood road, which will mean the demolition of 127 houses, or a single carriageway down that road with the heavy goods vehicles going down Spencifield lane.
I shall deal first with Goodwood road. It is already busy and dangerous. It cannot cope with a doubling of the traffic on it. The noise is so appalling that people cannot sleep at night. For the 127 people whose houses are at risk of demolition, the anxiety must be overwhelming. Theirs is


a priority view, no matter what the residents feel elsewhere, since it is they who will have to go through the harrowing experience of losing their homes. Some of them have already stated that they would rather go elsewhere than stay there because the road has become so busy. They should be listened to and their views should be acted upon.
We shall not tolerate any increased traffic along Spencifield lane. I and local people, including local councillors have discussed the large volume of traffic already on Spencifield lane. There are two schools in this very residential area, and we have already brought to the council's attention the traffic difficulties associated with feeder roads such as Downing drive. If either of these routes is chosen the other will suffer because smaller connecting roads will be used as rat runs and residents will be continually harassed.
Finally, Biggin Hill road is also on the route. The residents of this tiny cul-de-sac face the awesome prospect of a road running through their road which will carry 25,000 vehicles. They must wonder what on earth they have done to deserve that.
The cost of the scheme has reached staggering proportions. The cost of the A46-A47 link road is now £4·6 million, excluding any compensation that will have to be paid to residents. The cost of the eastern district distributor road is put at between £12 million and £14 million, depending on which option is chosen.
Alternatives have already been advanced. They would take the traffic and the misery outside the city. The proposals accept the need to ease the worries of people who live on Humberstone drive without the need to allow this traffic to be imposed on other local people. The road would go out of the city boundary at Thurky Grange and over the land at the back of Delaware road and Newhaven road. That route would keep the heavy goods vehicles and ordinary traffic well away from built-up areas, and it would not rejoin the main route until it reached Stoughton road.
This is just one of the proposals. In my view, the highly paid officers at county hall are paid their high salaries to propose alternatives, not to choose the most convenient way out. The Minister can help us out of this problem. He can authorise and support the idea of a trunk road round Leicester. The Government's White Paper suggested the idea of an eastern bypass. He has told me in the past that he has not been approached by the local community for support for the scheme. I have a mandate from tonight's meeting and from the people of Leicester, East to ask him to reconsider the position.
Mr. Ken Arkley, the county engineer, prompted by tonight's public meeting, has informed us that the Department of Transport has not yet commissioned a study. Will the Minister please commission a study into the proposals for an eastern bypass? Any alternative would cost more money. The Minister knows that from the meetings that we have had. Will he please meet a delegation, led by myself, of local councillors and county officers who will make the case for additional funding for an alternative route round Leicester? An extra £3 million or so will provide a long-term solution. Will he confirm that money would be forthcoming if the county made out a strong case?
The route has been dubbed the road to nowhere. In fact, it is the road to ruin. It will ruin the lives of 16,000 people in my constituency. It is high time that the county council stopped treating the eastern part of Leicester and its road transport system as though it were an expensive Lego set to be created and dismantled at will. It is time that they stopped playing politics with people's lives. It is time that they gave local people a firm timetable with firm proposals which will take the traffic out of the city of Leicester and out of residential areas.
Delay and uncertainty are the enemy of progress. If the county council does not put these people first, we shall be in a bare-knuckle fight to make them listen and act on the views of local people, because these are the people whose views should count. We look to the Minister for support in this endeavour.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope): This has been an interesting, albeit short, debate, because we have heard the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) arguing for even more investment in the trunk road system. I see him nodding in agreement with that. I am sure that that point will not be lost on the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who has announced that there would be a moratorium on the Government's trunk road building programe should there ever be a Labour Government. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to report tonight's proceedings to his constituents and to tell them that there is but one political party that is unequivocally committed to continuing to investment in the capital infrastructure of our road system—the Conservative party, which I am proud to represent.
The Government have had a good record on providing resources for trunk roads in and around Leciester, not within the city itself, because within the city the roads are not trunked. In the last financial year, some £62 million was spent by the Department of Transport on constructing trunk road improvement schemes in Leicestershire. That represents almost 50 per cent. of all such expenditure in the east midlands in the same period, and is a measure of the importance that the Department and the Government attach to the road infrastructure in Leicestershire.
Since the subject of the Adjournment debate is trunk roads in Leicester, I do not intend to respond in detail to the points about the local roads in Leicester, for which the Government are not responsible. On the trunk roads in Leicestershire and the programme for the future, the 1989 White Paper "Roads for Prosperity" announced that we would spend some £3·5 billion on improving the capacity of the motorway network, and one of the most important parts of that network is the M1 where it runs through Leicestershire. That is now the subject of a consultants' study to see what is the best system of widening between junctions 19 and 23A.
That scheme will be expensive, but when it is completed, it will play an important part in the regeneration of employment opportunities in Leicestershire. The area east of junction 21 has been identified by Leicestershire county council's structure plan as the motorway's employment area. That emphasises the point often made by the Government—that the provision of a good roads infrastructure is often an essential part of providing employment opportunities.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are many other schemes in the Department's programmes. I will not describe them all, but the Market Harborough bypass is under construction and is going well, and we are working on the £31 million dual-carriageway Quorn-Mountsorrel bypass.
We have already announced that we will include in the trunk road programme a study of the eastern bypass. That will go out to consultants shortly. When the design commission is awarded later this month or next month, it will be possible for the consultants to investigate the points that the hon. Gentleman raised tonight.
The eastern bypass scheme is well down the list in the programme. It is one of the last for which we shall be appointing consultants, and it takes a lower place in the order of priorities than many other schemes. Its estimated cost is about £45 million, so it is very dependent on a continuing commitment to the "Roads for Prosperity" programme that this Government support, but which could be jeopardised were another party to take office.

Mr. Vaz: I am glad to hear that the study has gone out to consultants. Can the Minister give a rough timetable for when he envisages that the consultants will begin reporting? Does he accept that one of the problems about spending a lot of money on the link road and distributor road is that it will be wasted if the bypass is subsequently constructed? Will the Minister meet a delegation from Leicestershire county council to hear the arguments for the case that the scheme in question should have a higher place on the Government's agenda? We appreciate that there are many schemes before the Minister, but will he listen to the views of local people, through their elected officials? Will he listen to the argument that, if the scheme had greater priority, that could save money on the link road that is currently being created?

Mr. Chope: If the hon. Gentleman wants to arrange a delegation to discuss a new road scheme, I shall be happy to meet it. I will not prejudge the case, and I will listen to the arguments. However, I understand that the eastern bypass, which would link the A46 and the A6, is not an alternative to doing something about the amount of traffic in the urban area of eastern Leicester. I am informed that anything from 15,000 vehicles a day upwards are using the route of the proposed eastern distributor road and the link road to which the hon. Gentleman referred earlier.
Of that traffic, Leicestershire county council, which is the highways authority, estimates that 85 vehicles in every 100 are locally generated traffic. If that is so—I have no reason to doubt that statistic—the eastern bypass will not resolve that problem. Any urban community must face up to the fact that, if an enormous amount of traffic is generated within that community and wants to move around within the city, it is useful to have proper channels for it. That has been the county council's strategy, although it is a matter for local people to resolve among themselves; it is not for me to intervene.

Mr. Vaz: That was the point of tonight's local meeting. It was clear that people believed that, if a survey and study commissioned by the Department of Transport were carried out, the figures could be changed. They were not satisfied that the council's figures—which are several years old—were still accurate.
Will the Minister confirm that it is Government policy to move roads outside cities, rather than causing more congestion by adopting a broad policy of putting more roads inside city areas?

Mr. Chope: Certainly it is the Government's policy to invest in the inter-urban network, which primarily means motorways and trunk roads. That policy has been very successful: it has taken a good deal of traffic off less suitable roads. Within a conurbation, however, traffic often needs to get from one side of the city to another. That is why, under the system whereby we provide a 50 per cent. transport supplementary grant, many local authorities present bids for urban schemes dealing with traffic that has been generated within that urban locality and wishes either to leave the city centre for the motorway network, or to come back in, or to travel from one point to another within the city.
It is in that context that the link road, and, within Leicester, the distributor road that was to go right around the inner ring of Leicester, were conceived many years ago. The road has largely been built, although there are two missing parts. It is not for me to assess whether the strategy was right; but, if we were to build an eastern bypass for Leicester, it would certainly be much further out than the existing line of the distributor road.
I do not think that the amount of traffic that such a bypass would take that would otherwise use a distributor road is significant enough to suggest that this is a viable alternative. The eastern road is needed in its own right, as part of the inter-urban network. I leave it to the people of Leicester, and Leicestershire, to decide among themselves whether they want to proceed with any traffic relief within the Leicester conurbation.
It is always easy for those living in a city to say, "All our problems can be resolved if the road building is carried out outside the city"—or, in the case of the hon. Member for Leicester, East, outside his constituency. That is always an attractive argument, but I do not think that it is necessarily always practical: much of the traffic is generated within a city. That is why, to remove congestion and pollution and improve the quality of life of those who choose to live in cities, we must continue to invest in road infrastructure in the city centres.

Mr. Vaz: Does the Minister consider an increase in traffic from 9,000 to 20,000 vehicles a day an improvement in people's quality of life?

Mr. Chope: It depends on which people the hon. Gentleman means. People do not normally travel in motorised transport unless they have chosen freely to do so. Fewer people still own cars in this country than in most other European countries, and I detect no suggestion that the people of Leicester, or anywhere else, have said that they do not want to buy motor vehicles in the future, or to invest in their own personal transport.
I understand that, this very evening, the hon. Gentleman chose to travel by car from his constituency to the House to be in time for the debate. He used the motorway network, although there is a very good train service between Leicester and London. I would guess that he did that to gain the extra flexibility of being able to travel directly by car from the place where his meeting took place on to the M1, proceed to London, and then come straight into the House of Commons car park. I am


sure that many people in Leicester, as elsewhere, will be pleased to know that the hon. Gentleman uses road transport and is not in any way prejudiced against the car.

Mr. Vaz: I can confirm that I am not prejudiced against the car. I got here by car, as the Minister said. But for local residents who live near roads—whether they be trunk roads or roads inside cities—such an increase in the volume of traffic must be bound to affect the quality of life. Does not the Minister agree with that proposition?

Mr. Chope: If one lives by the side of a road, an enormous increase in the volume of traffic on that road will obviously affect one's quality of life. That is why many people in Leicester have argued in favour of the road

scheme to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Others have argued against it. People's reaction depends on whether they think that there will be benefits or disbenefits affecting them directly. Those are matters for local political resolution, and I should not wish to try to deal with local road controversies, because the Department of Transport has enough difficulty already in trying to deal with the national road schemes.
I can tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that the eastern bypass of Leicester is in the national scheme and we are in the process of appointing consultants on it. I look forward to meeting the hon. Gentleman and others from Leicester to discuss and hear about the suggestions that it might be a solution to all the traffic problems in Leicester.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Eleven o'clock.